As a result of this complex process of analysis, comparison, and critical editing of the 5,800 Greek manuscripts, early translations, and citations by the Early Christian writers of the first four centuries, which are the true sources from which the original NT text is reconstructed, textual critics have identified the following four major text-types:
1. The Western Text. This text type came into existence late in the second century, and had a wide geographical spread. Though it certainly contains readings from the original NT, it has a tendency to expand on and paraphrase the text, especially in the Gospels and Acts, which is less true of the other text types. An example of this tendency may be seen in Codex D where in Luke 6, between verses 5 and 6, the following words have been inserted: "That same day, seeing a certain man working on the Sabbath, he said, 'Man, if indeed you know what you are doing, you are blessed. But if you do not know what you are doing, you are accursed and a transgressor of the law.'" This text is represented by several Greek manuscripts, of which Codex D (Fifth century), is the best representative; by the Old Latin versions, which first appeared around 258 A.D.; and in the writings of Tertullian, Cyprian, and Novatian (mid-second to early third century A.D.). Moreover, the evidence also seems to indicate that this text-type had two branches, one associated with Rome and North Africa, the other with Antioch and the East.
2. The Alexandrian Text. This is the second oldest text-type, also dating back to the late second century. It was produced by professional scribes connected with the Christian academy there, who were trained in the textual criticism that was applied to all classic Greek literature by the scribes and scholars of the great Alexandrian Library. "Functioning as the most ancient of the New Testament textual critics, the Alexandrian scribes selected the best manuscripts and then produced a text that reflected what they considered to be the original text." So because of its age and general high quality, it is easy to see why Westcott and Hort favored this text-type over the Byzantine. However, while still regarded as one of the better edited and more reliable ancient text-types, many NT scholars today believe that, on the basis of current principles of textual criticism, some original readings were not included in the Alexandrian Text, and so give preference to the Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine text-types in these few instances. The Alexandrian Text is represented, in part, by P5 (John 1, 16, and 20, 3rd century), P47 (Rev. 9-17, 3rd century), P66 (John, 2nd century), P67 (Luke, 2nd century), P72 (1 and 2 Peter, Jude, 3rd century),P75 (Luke and John, c. 200 A.D.), Codex Sinaticus (4th Century), Codex Alexandrius (5th century), Codex Vaticanius (4th century); the Coptic and Sahidic translations (3rd-4th centuries); and the writings of Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 313-371 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria (c. 180-240 A.D.), and Origen (c. 185-254 A.D.).
3. The Caesarean Text. This is the third oldest text-type, and though it arose in Egypt, early in the third century it became associated with Caesarea. It was marked by the scribal practices current in both Egypt and Palestine, and was a mixed text that combined what the ancient scribes considered the best readings of both the Antiochian/Western Text and the Alexandrian Text. Some scholars, because of affinities with the Alexandrian Text, classify it as a subgroup of that text-type, while others argue that it has enough distinguishing characteristics to set it apart as a separate text-type. The primary witnesses to this text-type are the Chester Beatty Papyri (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts, c. 150 A.D.), Codex W (5th century), Codex Theta (9th century), Miniscules 565 and 700 (6th century), the Old Syriac Version (6th century), and the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 348-387 A.D.).
4. The Byzantine Text. This is the fourth oldest text-type, and is characterized by conflation, or combination of divergent readings, from the earlier text-types, as well as a deliberate harmonization of parallel passages. Though disputed by some, many NT scholars believe the Byzantine Text had its roots in a recension (i.e. a deliberate correcting and editing of a document) of the Antiochian/Western Text by Lucian, the Bishop of Antioch, which he brought to Constantinople prior to the Docletian Persecution (303-313 A.D.). These facts, plus the consideration that the Byzantine Text is not represented in Bible translations or citations by Christian writers of the first three centuries A.D., demonstrate the Byzantine Text to be a late and secondary witness to the original text of the NT. John Chrysostrom (c. 347-407 A.D.) is the first Greek Christian writer whose NT citations have definite Byzantine character. The primary witnesses for the Byzantine Text are Codices A, E, F, G, H, K, L, S (4th-6th centuries) most Miniscules (9th-11th centuries), and the Later Church Fathers (4th-6th centuries).
A Word of Clarification and Assurance
Now, for some who may find what we have said about the copying, distribution, and reconstruction of the original NT text disturbing, we need to make some clarification and give a word of assurance. 99% of the variants that exist between these four text-types are minor in nature, since they are misspellings of words, reversed word order, or words that were confused because they looked or sounded alike to the scribes who made the copies. So there is really only 1% or something in the order of 1,400 words that are in doubt as regards these variants. And none of them adversely affect the truthfulness of any Christian doctrine essential to salvation or godly living. F.F. Bruce states the situation very well:
Something more ought to be said, and said with much emphasis. We
have been discussing various textual types, and reviewing their comparative claims
to be regarded as the best representatives of the original New Testament text.
But there are not wide divergences between these types, of a kind that could make
any difference to the Church’s responsibility to be a witness and guardian of Holy Writ.
The Authorized Version of 1611, by and large, the Byzantine text. The Revised Version
of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901, which were produced under the
influence of Westcott and Hort’s textual theory and work , represent in the main
the Alexandrian text. The Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, and New
International Version reflect the views of contemporary textual scholars, who have traced
the various early lines of textual transmission back to the second century, and represent an
eclectic text, each variant reading of the second-century textual types being considered on
its own merits, without marked preference being given to any single one of these types. But
the words of one of the editors of the R.S.V. are perfectly true of it and of the later versions:
“It will be obvious to the careful reader that still in 1946, as in 1881 and 1901, no doctrine
of the Christian faith has been affected by the revision, for the simple reason that, out of the thousands of variant readings in the manuscripts, none has turned up thus far that requires a
revision of Christian doctrine.” (F.F. Bruce. "The Text of the New Testament," The Books
and the Parchments, 2nd Edition, pp.124-125.)
Nevertheless, despite what Bruce and others have said, there are those who, in defending the KJV and the Textus Receptus, insist on making the charge that modern translations, based on any text other than the Byzantine Text, either deny or water-down references to the deity of Jesus Christ. But this is not true, as the following chart on five key NT verses reveals, which compares the KJV (1611), based on the Byzantine Text; the English Revised Version (1881), based on the Alexandrian Text; and the NIV (1984), based on an Eclectic Text (a critical text that incorporates the best readings of all four text-types). And for an additional comparison, the New World Translation used by Jehovah Witnesses has been included in the chart:
Key NT Verses on Christ’s Deity (Y=Yes; X=No)
Translation: John 1:1 John 1:18 Titus 2:13 Hebrews 1:8 2 Peter 1:1
KJV Y X X Y X
ERV Y X Y Y Y
NIV Y Y Y Y Y
NWT X X X X X
Except for the NWT, which reflects the heretical teaching of the Jehovah Witnesses, all the other translations affirm the deity of Jesus Christ. However, as can be plainly seen from the chart, it is the NIV and not the KJV, that consistently affirms Christ’s deity. So, at least on this key point of doctrine, I trust no one will glibly tell me or anyone else that the KJV is “a superior witness” to modern translations as regards the deity of Christ. Clearly, the evidence shows otherwise.
I don’t have space to go into the pros and cons for the quality and use of every modern translation of the Bible into English. Yet for those who are interested in this matter, I would recommend Sakae Kubo and Walter Specht’s So Many Versions?: Twentieth Century English Versions of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1975). As for myself, I prefer to use Bible translations written in modern English, produced by scholars who believe in the full inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the original NT, and that are based on an eclectic Greek New Testament text: The New American Standard Version, the New International Version, the New Living Translation, and the God's Word Translation. Still, I would encourage you to read Kubo and Specht's book and decide for yourself which Bible translations are best for you.
Now, A Final Word
I must briefly address issues brought up by a small group of ultra-conservative agitators who are opposed to the use of all modern Bible translations not based on the Textus Receptus, which underlies the KJV. For this shift from the Textus Receptus and the KJV to modern translations based on the "corrupt" Alexandrian text, they primarily blame Brooke F. Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort, whom they often portray in a very sinister and diabolical manner. And so I will now say something about Brooke F. Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort.
The first thing to be said is that it is true that Westcott and Hort may have not been as conservative in some of their views as are some modern conservative Evangelical Christians. However, that does not, in and of itself, invalidate their NT textual critical theory and work. For there were conservative, orthodox scholars, such as J. A. Bengel and Samuel P. Tregelles whose work anticipated that of Westcott and Hort and which, indeed, was the foundation that Westcott and Hort built upon. And later conservative, orthodox scholars, such as Benjamin B. Warfield, F.F. Bruce, J. Gresham Machen, and Gordon D. Fee have confirmed that the Alexandrian Text is both earlier than the Byzantine Text and is, at many points, a more reliable witness to the original N.T. text. And this is true, regardless of anyone’s negative or positive opinions about these men.
Furthermore, Brooke F. Westcott was an excellent NT expositor and wrote a first-rate commentary on John's Gospel that was both conservative in viewpoint and unsurpassed in its explanation of John's message. Though in some respects more liberal in his opinions than Westcott, it should be noted that Fenton J. A. Hort wrote a short treatise defending "God the Only Son" as the original reading of John 1:18. And please remember that both men were Anglican clergymen, which means that some of their views on baptism and church membership, for instance, would be different from those of Baptists. Can we not recognize the positive contributions of these men without totally writing them off? We talk about unity in essentials, liberty in disputable matters, and love towards all; should we not give them the benefit of the doubt?
Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying we should overlook genuine errors on their part. But the charges made by some KJVO defenders, for instance, that they denied the deity of Christ, or denied the propitiatory nature of Christ's sacrifice, or were even active members in an occult "Ghost Society," are absolutely false! On the basis of research I was able to do on the Internet, I found that these charges proved to be, for the most part, distortions of comments in certain of Westcott's letters and written works that were made by a rabid "King-James-Version-Only" writer, Gail Riplinger, in her book New Age Versions. Arguments that other KJVO defenders, I must say, have taken up and used without taking the trouble to research and verify their validity. Moreover, a number of scholars have revealed how Riplinger’s book is just full of distorted information, fallacious arguments, and flat out lies.
Christians who, above all others, profess both to love the truth and to love their Christian brothers and sisters, should never engage in arguments that attempt to draw conclusions from a prejudicial selection of evidence available, or from a slanted use of terms, or a slurring appeal to guilt by association, or repeated appeal to false evidence. If anyone does not agree with Westcott and Hort’s textual theory and work, then give us well-reasoned arguments squarely based on the NT textual evidence we possess, and not on Riplinger and her followers misrepresentations, distortions, and falsehoods.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Monday, March 25, 2013
Textual Criticism and the Preservation of the NT, Part 1
In discussions about the NT record of Jesus' life and ministry, especially with atheists and Muslims, one often hears the charge that the NT documents have been corrupted and so are not reliable witnesses to what Jesus actually said and did. More often than not, those making these charges are unaware that NT textual criticism confirms that of all ancient texts, the NT text is the most well preserved and reliable of them all. So in this article we will consider the nature and practice of NT textual criticism; what it tells us about the preservation and reliability of the NT text; and how that affects the trustworthiness and usefulness of the various Bible translations Christians use today.
Nature and Practice of NT Textual Criticism
Textual Criticism is the scientific study of various witnesses to an original text, following certain set principles of analysis, evaluation and categorization. By careful examination of these witnesses, and the consistent use of these set principles, textual critics, as nearly as is possible, reconstruct this original text from all the witnesses available. For the New Testament, the evidence for the original text is not only provided by the earliest manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, but also by the earliest ancient translations (e.g. Old Latin, Aramaic and Coptic), from the readings of which the underlying Greek can often be inferred. In addition, there are the quotations from the New Testament in the works of early Christian writers from the second to sixth centuries in Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Coptic and Armenian that are also valuable in recovering the original text of the New Testament.
From the 1st century until the 15th century, all religious and secular books were copied by hand. As consequence, there were common copyist errors that led to variants, or differing readings, between manuscripts copied from a single archetype or primary text: Words were misspelled; word order was reversed; words that looked alike, though different in meaning, were confused and copied, etc. Then there are intentional errors, such as harmonization of all parallel passages when the copyist noted differences in the exemplar (i.e. the primary text being copied), correction of what the copyist perceived as poor grammar in the exemplar, or correcting what is perceived therein by the copyist as a theologically novel or unorthodox reading. And the manuscripts in all the Text-types, whether Western, Alexandrian, Caesarean or Byzantine, contain some variants of these kinds.
So in order to eliminate these copyist errors, and reconstruct the original text as much as possible, there is a four-stage process in a NT critic’s work, as F.F. Bruce explains:
There are four principle stages in the work of the textual critic. First,
he makes a study such individual manuscripts as are available to him,
correcting obvious [copyist] slips and taking cognizance of what appear to
be scribal alterations, whether accidental or deliberate. Next, he arranges
these manuscripts in groups. Those which share some peculiar features
of spelling, wording, or some common error, are probably related to one
another and have a common archetype. There are different ways of
grouping manuscripts, according as their evident relation to one another is
more or less close. Those whose mutual relation can be fairly precisely
established are said to constitute a family. But a number of families, while
they are diverse from one another in many respects, may have a sufficient
number of significant features in common to suggest that they all
represent one rather early textual type. In the third place, when the
arranging of the manuscripts in groups leads to the establishment of an
archetype for each of the groups which have been distinguished, these
archetypes themselves are subjected to comparative study in the hope
that it may be possible to reconstruct a provisional archetype from which
the archetypes themselves are descended; if this is achieved, then we
have arrived as closely as we can to the autographic text (F.F. Bruce, The Books
And the Parchments, 2nd Edtion (1981), p. 212).
As they carry out this four stage task, textual critics follow certain criteria that have to do with both the external and internal evidence we possess. And for any manuscript to be considered a trustworthy witness to the original Greek New Testament, it must pass all these criteria, which include the following:
1. Date of the Text-Type. Other things being equal, an older document may be more authoritative than a more recent one. This is not only true as regards the differences of the oldest manuscripts comprising the four text types, but also of the manuscripts comprising each individual text- type as well. Consider the so-called Textus Receptus, which underlies the KJV of 1611. While it is a member of the Byzantine Text-type, it is now regarded as a late and poor witness of that text-type. This edition of the Greek New Testament was produced and published in 1516 by Desiderius Erasmus (1469-1536), a Roman Catholic biblical scholar and theologian. It was based on seven Greek manuscripts, none older than the eleventh century, and incomplete ones at that. "For the Book of Revelation he had but one manuscript, and it was lacking the final leaf, which contained the last six verses of the book. Therefore Erasmus translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek and published that. Hence in the last six verses of Revelation in Erasmus's Greek New Testament, several words and phrases may be found that are attested in Greek manuscript whatsoever." When older manuscripts were discovered, between 1650 and 1850, study and comparison of the Textus Receptus with these texts soon revealed it as an inferior representative of the Byzantine Text-type. Hence calls for the revision of the KJV, in the light of these new discoveries, began as early as 1660. So for all their notoriety, Westcott and Hort were at the end of a long process that led to both the criticism and replacement of the Textus Receptus as the sole basis for English translations.
2. Geographical Distribution of the Text-Type. Readings found in manuscripts from widely separated geographical areas indicate it is less likely to be the idiosyncratic error of one local from which the manuscript may have come. So though the various text-types may have originated in Egypt, Asia Minor, Palestine, and Italy, they were not restricted to those locations. The evidence we possess indicates that prior to the Diocletian Persecution (303-310 A.D.) and the ascendancy of Byzantium under Constantine (306-337 A.D.), the other three Text Types (i.e. Western, Alexandrian, and Caesarean) were as widely spread geographically, as was the later Byzantine Text, even though fewer numbers of those earlier texts were preserved. The evidence also indicates that during the second century, a certain amount of "cross-pollination" among the text-types occurred as copies of the NT were being circulated and recopied in the various centers of Christianity; it was only in the third century that they became more fixed and identified with certain locals.
3. Genealogical Relationship. The relationship of the various witnesses to the text-types is important, for if a variety witnesses that support a particular reading from one text type, then this is an indication that they are all copies of copies of copies springing from one main, ancestral archetype. Therefore, manuscripts must be weighed, and not merely counted. This means that though 95% of the existing Greek manuscripts are of the Byzantine Text-type, all are copies of copies of copies of an ancestral archetype that cannot be traced beyond 250 A.D., and the majority of these Byzantine manuscripts date from the seventh century or later. And though it is disputed, a number of scholars, beginning with Westcott and Hort, have argued that the Byzantine text itself originated with a form of the Western text, known as Old Antiochian, brought to Constantinople by Lucian, the former Bishop of Antioch, just prior to the outbreak of the Diocletian Persecution. So, for these reasons, the Byzantine Text, though represented by a larger number of manuscripts, is not now regarded as being superior to the other text-types as a preserver of the original readings of the NT.
4. The shorter reading is preferable to the longer reading. If a scribe makes an intentional change in the NT text, he is more likely to add than to omit, such as a note of explanation, adding a phrase from a parallel passage, or conflating (i.e. combining) two or more readings. For example, consider Luke 11:2, where the good doctor gives us his version of "The Lord's Prayer." In Bible versions based on the critical NT text, it reads, "Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come," whereas some versions based primarily on the Byzantine text read, "Our Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come." A scribe, familiar with the Lord's Prayer in Matthew, might assume (incorrectly) that the version in Luke left out some words, and so would add words from Matthew to make the two versions more fully agree. The problem with this assumption by the scribe, of course, is that one form of the prayer was given while Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount and the second, as Luke plainly tells us (Luke 11:1), some time later, when Jesus and the disciples were alone for mediation and prayer, and his disciples asked for instruction on how to better pray. It was due to the fact that some scribes did not understand how Jesus could teach two different forms of this prayer, to different audiences on different occasions that tended to lead to their harmonization of these passages. Otherwise, if the longer reading was original, then there does not seem to be any good reason why it should have shortened. Therefore, in Luke 11:2, the shorter reading is preferable to the longer reading.
5. The harder reading is preferable to an easier reading. A scribe is more likely to change a word which is difficult to understand into a word which is easier to understand and is related in meaning. For example, consider John 1:18, for which there are these two readings: a) monogenes huios ("the One and Only Son"); and b) monogenes Theos ("the One and Only God"). The easiest reading is clearly monogenes huios, since it is the form found in John 3:16. Monogenes Theos is the more difficult or harder reading; yet it agrees with John's teaching elsewhere, in which he specifically identifies Jesus the Son as being God (e.g., John1:1). "It may make even surer sense, if we assume that the correct text omits the article before monogenes (as do W-H, Merk, Nestle, BFBS 2nd ed., on good mss. evidence), as the emphasis may then be upon Christ's nature: "No one has seen God...He who himself is deity...has set him forth" (J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction To New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 102). And that is why the NRSV, for example, renders John 1:18 as follows: "No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known."
6. The reading from which other readings in a variant could most easily have developed is preferable. This principle may overlap with the previous two principles, since either a short reading or a hard reading may give rise to alternate readings. In general, the various types of intentional and unintentional errors suggest the bases on which one reading may give rise to another. Again, consider the example of Luke 11:2 above. If the longer reading were original, there would be no apparent reason for its omission. On the other hand, if the shorter were original, it is more likely that a scribe, in order to harmonize this text with Matthew and with the common liturgy of the Church, would add words to harmonize the two texts.
7. The reading which is characteristic of the NT author is preferable. This principle is usually applied only after the previous principles have been rigorously applied, and there is still some doubt as which reading best reflects the original task. In the case of John 1:18, the principle is applied as follows: John characteristically uses the Greek word monogenes (“one and only, unique”) as a synonym for the Greek word agapetos, “beloved, most beloved” when applied to Jesus in 1:14; 3:16; and 1 John 3. Furthermore, in the other passages where it is used of other persons, the word clearly does not mean “only begotten.” In Hebrews 11:17, for example, Isaac is called Abraham’s “monogenes son.” Isaac was “the beloved son,” the son in whom the Abrahamic Covenant was to be initially realized (it has been fully realized in Jesus Christ, the Seed of Abraham, and all who are united to him by the Holy Spirit, cf. Gal. 3:15-4:7). But we know Abraham “begat” other sons in addition to Isaac, as Gen. 25:1-2 makes abundantly clear. So the translation of John 1:18 in the NLT, rather than that of the KJV, is a much better translation: “No one has ever seen God. But the Unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.”
Nature and Practice of NT Textual Criticism
Textual Criticism is the scientific study of various witnesses to an original text, following certain set principles of analysis, evaluation and categorization. By careful examination of these witnesses, and the consistent use of these set principles, textual critics, as nearly as is possible, reconstruct this original text from all the witnesses available. For the New Testament, the evidence for the original text is not only provided by the earliest manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, but also by the earliest ancient translations (e.g. Old Latin, Aramaic and Coptic), from the readings of which the underlying Greek can often be inferred. In addition, there are the quotations from the New Testament in the works of early Christian writers from the second to sixth centuries in Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Coptic and Armenian that are also valuable in recovering the original text of the New Testament.
From the 1st century until the 15th century, all religious and secular books were copied by hand. As consequence, there were common copyist errors that led to variants, or differing readings, between manuscripts copied from a single archetype or primary text: Words were misspelled; word order was reversed; words that looked alike, though different in meaning, were confused and copied, etc. Then there are intentional errors, such as harmonization of all parallel passages when the copyist noted differences in the exemplar (i.e. the primary text being copied), correction of what the copyist perceived as poor grammar in the exemplar, or correcting what is perceived therein by the copyist as a theologically novel or unorthodox reading. And the manuscripts in all the Text-types, whether Western, Alexandrian, Caesarean or Byzantine, contain some variants of these kinds.
So in order to eliminate these copyist errors, and reconstruct the original text as much as possible, there is a four-stage process in a NT critic’s work, as F.F. Bruce explains:
There are four principle stages in the work of the textual critic. First,
he makes a study such individual manuscripts as are available to him,
correcting obvious [copyist] slips and taking cognizance of what appear to
be scribal alterations, whether accidental or deliberate. Next, he arranges
these manuscripts in groups. Those which share some peculiar features
of spelling, wording, or some common error, are probably related to one
another and have a common archetype. There are different ways of
grouping manuscripts, according as their evident relation to one another is
more or less close. Those whose mutual relation can be fairly precisely
established are said to constitute a family. But a number of families, while
they are diverse from one another in many respects, may have a sufficient
number of significant features in common to suggest that they all
represent one rather early textual type. In the third place, when the
arranging of the manuscripts in groups leads to the establishment of an
archetype for each of the groups which have been distinguished, these
archetypes themselves are subjected to comparative study in the hope
that it may be possible to reconstruct a provisional archetype from which
the archetypes themselves are descended; if this is achieved, then we
have arrived as closely as we can to the autographic text (F.F. Bruce, The Books
And the Parchments, 2nd Edtion (1981), p. 212).
As they carry out this four stage task, textual critics follow certain criteria that have to do with both the external and internal evidence we possess. And for any manuscript to be considered a trustworthy witness to the original Greek New Testament, it must pass all these criteria, which include the following:
1. Date of the Text-Type. Other things being equal, an older document may be more authoritative than a more recent one. This is not only true as regards the differences of the oldest manuscripts comprising the four text types, but also of the manuscripts comprising each individual text- type as well. Consider the so-called Textus Receptus, which underlies the KJV of 1611. While it is a member of the Byzantine Text-type, it is now regarded as a late and poor witness of that text-type. This edition of the Greek New Testament was produced and published in 1516 by Desiderius Erasmus (1469-1536), a Roman Catholic biblical scholar and theologian. It was based on seven Greek manuscripts, none older than the eleventh century, and incomplete ones at that. "For the Book of Revelation he had but one manuscript, and it was lacking the final leaf, which contained the last six verses of the book. Therefore Erasmus translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek and published that. Hence in the last six verses of Revelation in Erasmus's Greek New Testament, several words and phrases may be found that are attested in Greek manuscript whatsoever." When older manuscripts were discovered, between 1650 and 1850, study and comparison of the Textus Receptus with these texts soon revealed it as an inferior representative of the Byzantine Text-type. Hence calls for the revision of the KJV, in the light of these new discoveries, began as early as 1660. So for all their notoriety, Westcott and Hort were at the end of a long process that led to both the criticism and replacement of the Textus Receptus as the sole basis for English translations.
2. Geographical Distribution of the Text-Type. Readings found in manuscripts from widely separated geographical areas indicate it is less likely to be the idiosyncratic error of one local from which the manuscript may have come. So though the various text-types may have originated in Egypt, Asia Minor, Palestine, and Italy, they were not restricted to those locations. The evidence we possess indicates that prior to the Diocletian Persecution (303-310 A.D.) and the ascendancy of Byzantium under Constantine (306-337 A.D.), the other three Text Types (i.e. Western, Alexandrian, and Caesarean) were as widely spread geographically, as was the later Byzantine Text, even though fewer numbers of those earlier texts were preserved. The evidence also indicates that during the second century, a certain amount of "cross-pollination" among the text-types occurred as copies of the NT were being circulated and recopied in the various centers of Christianity; it was only in the third century that they became more fixed and identified with certain locals.
3. Genealogical Relationship. The relationship of the various witnesses to the text-types is important, for if a variety witnesses that support a particular reading from one text type, then this is an indication that they are all copies of copies of copies springing from one main, ancestral archetype. Therefore, manuscripts must be weighed, and not merely counted. This means that though 95% of the existing Greek manuscripts are of the Byzantine Text-type, all are copies of copies of copies of an ancestral archetype that cannot be traced beyond 250 A.D., and the majority of these Byzantine manuscripts date from the seventh century or later. And though it is disputed, a number of scholars, beginning with Westcott and Hort, have argued that the Byzantine text itself originated with a form of the Western text, known as Old Antiochian, brought to Constantinople by Lucian, the former Bishop of Antioch, just prior to the outbreak of the Diocletian Persecution. So, for these reasons, the Byzantine Text, though represented by a larger number of manuscripts, is not now regarded as being superior to the other text-types as a preserver of the original readings of the NT.
4. The shorter reading is preferable to the longer reading. If a scribe makes an intentional change in the NT text, he is more likely to add than to omit, such as a note of explanation, adding a phrase from a parallel passage, or conflating (i.e. combining) two or more readings. For example, consider Luke 11:2, where the good doctor gives us his version of "The Lord's Prayer." In Bible versions based on the critical NT text, it reads, "Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come," whereas some versions based primarily on the Byzantine text read, "Our Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come." A scribe, familiar with the Lord's Prayer in Matthew, might assume (incorrectly) that the version in Luke left out some words, and so would add words from Matthew to make the two versions more fully agree. The problem with this assumption by the scribe, of course, is that one form of the prayer was given while Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount and the second, as Luke plainly tells us (Luke 11:1), some time later, when Jesus and the disciples were alone for mediation and prayer, and his disciples asked for instruction on how to better pray. It was due to the fact that some scribes did not understand how Jesus could teach two different forms of this prayer, to different audiences on different occasions that tended to lead to their harmonization of these passages. Otherwise, if the longer reading was original, then there does not seem to be any good reason why it should have shortened. Therefore, in Luke 11:2, the shorter reading is preferable to the longer reading.
5. The harder reading is preferable to an easier reading. A scribe is more likely to change a word which is difficult to understand into a word which is easier to understand and is related in meaning. For example, consider John 1:18, for which there are these two readings: a) monogenes huios ("the One and Only Son"); and b) monogenes Theos ("the One and Only God"). The easiest reading is clearly monogenes huios, since it is the form found in John 3:16. Monogenes Theos is the more difficult or harder reading; yet it agrees with John's teaching elsewhere, in which he specifically identifies Jesus the Son as being God (e.g., John1:1). "It may make even surer sense, if we assume that the correct text omits the article before monogenes (as do W-H, Merk, Nestle, BFBS 2nd ed., on good mss. evidence), as the emphasis may then be upon Christ's nature: "No one has seen God...He who himself is deity...has set him forth" (J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction To New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 102). And that is why the NRSV, for example, renders John 1:18 as follows: "No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known."
6. The reading from which other readings in a variant could most easily have developed is preferable. This principle may overlap with the previous two principles, since either a short reading or a hard reading may give rise to alternate readings. In general, the various types of intentional and unintentional errors suggest the bases on which one reading may give rise to another. Again, consider the example of Luke 11:2 above. If the longer reading were original, there would be no apparent reason for its omission. On the other hand, if the shorter were original, it is more likely that a scribe, in order to harmonize this text with Matthew and with the common liturgy of the Church, would add words to harmonize the two texts.
7. The reading which is characteristic of the NT author is preferable. This principle is usually applied only after the previous principles have been rigorously applied, and there is still some doubt as which reading best reflects the original task. In the case of John 1:18, the principle is applied as follows: John characteristically uses the Greek word monogenes (“one and only, unique”) as a synonym for the Greek word agapetos, “beloved, most beloved” when applied to Jesus in 1:14; 3:16; and 1 John 3. Furthermore, in the other passages where it is used of other persons, the word clearly does not mean “only begotten.” In Hebrews 11:17, for example, Isaac is called Abraham’s “monogenes son.” Isaac was “the beloved son,” the son in whom the Abrahamic Covenant was to be initially realized (it has been fully realized in Jesus Christ, the Seed of Abraham, and all who are united to him by the Holy Spirit, cf. Gal. 3:15-4:7). But we know Abraham “begat” other sons in addition to Isaac, as Gen. 25:1-2 makes abundantly clear. So the translation of John 1:18 in the NLT, rather than that of the KJV, is a much better translation: “No one has ever seen God. But the Unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)