In this episode Brother Jonathan discusses the Recension Theory, the Genealogical method, and the maxim "Ancient Evidence Only". Also, the marginal references to the "oldest and best" manuscripts are considered. Is there a text that is really "better"?
*The original audio problems with this episode have been fixed.
For full MLA format citation of the quotations please email: Brotherjon@remnantbiblefellowship.com
________________________________________________________
Bible Versions
Part 4: Textual Theory
Episode 13
Remnant Bible
Fellowship
I.
Intro
a. In the last episode we discussed the
differences between two methods of textual criticism, and with extensive quotes
we showed that the majority view is based on nothing more than “conjectures”,
“subjective judgment”, and the “individual mind of the critic”…those are their
words and not mine. The view of taking the external evidence—Patristic
quotations, lectionaries, other ancient versions—as the main witness of true
readings is shown to be a common sense approach. The reason being obvious: if
you have different manuscripts that say a verse should read two different ways
there is no way for you to know for a fact why they are different. The issue
isn’t even why they are different. The issue is only which is the correct
reading. Without some outside source of evidence all you can do is guess. Some
critics say, “Whichever reading is simpler is obviously the original—because
scribes have a tendency to add things.” Other critics say, “Whichever reading
is more complex is obviously the original reading—because scribes have a
tendency to omit things.” The fact is there is no way to know for sure! You
can’t make a broad sweeping generalization after either manner because there is
no way to be sure. Some scribes, by sloppy copying, might have added some
things. Other scribes, by sloppy copying, might have omitted some things.
Another scribe could have done both! There is simply no way to know for sure
without outside evidence.
b. The task at hand is not to figure out how
every single variant reading of the text of scripture occurred in the first
place. There really is no purpose to that if that is your desire. The task at
hand for these scholars should be to simply figure out which reading of a given
text is the genuine one. Anything other than that is really just a waste of
time.
c. If we have a reading that has been
witnessed to as genuine by Patristic quotations, lectionaries, and other
versions that all pre-dated the manuscripts that we were examining we could
make a very sure estimation couldn’t we? Whichever reading that would be
supported by the most varied, reliable, and consistent evidence must surely
contain the original reading. It’s pretty self-evident. It’s the difference
between fact-based reasoning and assuming. If you’re simply looking at variants
and trying to figure out which one originated first, and that’s all that you’re
doing: you’re assuming.
d. I mentioned last episode that one of the
issues we were going to be focusing on in this episode is that very common
marginal reference, “This verse is not in the oldest and best MSS.” I showed
last time that the majority view of textual criticism is the “eclectic” method
in some form or fashion. In like manner, the view that “oldest is best” is a
prevailing view today amongst Bible scholars. This is the view that the oldest
manuscript is obviously the one with the least amount of corruption from
scribal errors, intentional changes, etc. I’ll tell you up front—all things
being equal, it is a true statement. But, that statement depends on whether all
things are truly equal. If you had two different manuscripts that had an equal
quality of good copying, an equal reputation of good character, and equal
outside witnesses to the readings that they contained by Patristic evidence,
lectionaries, and other Versions—then you could safely assume that whichever is
older is closer to the original reading. What you will find however is that the
manuscripts to which people are referring are terrible witnesses to any
reading. We’ll look at why in great detail.
e. But there is a false representation of
the state of things today. It is usually put forth as “tradition versus ancient
evidence” or “old manuscripts versus new manuscripts”. As you’ll find out, the
truth is not hard to find. Though, judging from some scholars’ beliefs and practices,
it is for some reason hard to accept. But just as the “eclectic” method of
textual criticism is shown to be unscientific and without factual evidence, the
same can be said of this relatively modern view.
II.
Arguing
about Terms
a. It can be mind-numbing listening to
textual critics argue. It really can be. I’m not trying to be mean or anything,
but I do believe that it’s a correct statement. I said last episode that when
you bring up certain things, like the idea of text-types and text-families, you
get into an argument over semantics. People arguing over how to categorize
groups of manuscripts. “This text is Caesarean.” “No, it’s distinctly
Caesarean!” “This text is Byzantine.” “I believe it’s a neutral text.” Anyone
who took a class on textual criticism thinks that they’re an expert. I don’t
pretend to be an expert, but if you go on the forums and websites where these
people congregate to argue all that you find is people arguing about what type
of text a reading or MSS should be classified as, how did the changes
originate, etc. It’s all just a waste of time.
b. What you need to understand is that all
of these terms are made-up. Someone somewhere just started lumping all of these
groups of manuscripts together that shared a similar geographical origin. These
groups of manuscripts usually, but not always, show a general commonality in
traits. The groups that are commonly named today though, are: Western,
Byzantine, Alexandrian, Neutral. Dr. Fenton J.A. Hort is the one name that is
heard a lot in the conversation of the Biblical text. Before him there was
Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Griesbach, along with Lachmann and Aland. These
names, especially Aland and Lachmann, are had in great reputation today.
Really, there has been no significant change in the realm of textual criticism
in the last 140 years. We have more manuscripts now, a lot more. But the way in
which people reason has not really changed at all.
c. What you need to remember, is that these
are all man-made terms. In much the same way that evolutionists say the word
“species” most textual critics just argue about what text-type a manuscript is
so that they can categorize it. An “eclectic” method is supposed to be better
than just “lumping” because it looks at individual readings instead of whole
manuscripts. The problem, as we saw last episode, is that for the most part
critics just look at the two and “conjecture” (their word) about which one was
first. We saw last episode that an “eclectic” text is just such a text—a text
built upon conjectures. Also, by using quotes from the critics themselves I
showed you that it must needs be that the majority of Bible versions made since
the late 1800s have been built upon this “eclectic” method of assembling the
underlying text for translation. This is the case because it’s been the
majority view held by scholars since the late 1800s.
d. But as I said last episode, even some
critics who do look to outside evidence can come to the wrong conclusions by
assuming one or two ideas that have no basis in fact. This is usually because
these men are taught the same ideas at the same schools who read the same
books. Certain notions will get you laughed out of some Bible schools and
seminaries. I’ve heard of it happening to people personally. If you don’t go
along with the majority view then you are laughed at and marginalized. It’s
just the same regarding the text of the Bible as it is regarding the world
pushing the idea of the big bang theory. And when the majority is proved to be
incorrect people defend it for a time until it becomes ridiculous and then
people move on to the next idea. As long as it stays away from that which will
get you laughed at. So just as the evolutionists are moving away from the big
bang theory to the multi-verse theory, even so all the critics have moved away
from other older ideas that have been seen to be indefensible. Let’s consider
two of them now.
III.
The
Recension Theory
a. Dr. F.J.A. Hort was the one to really
push this idea to the extreme. It’s also referred to as the theory of
conflation. What it states is that sometime in the fourth or fifth century
there was a revision of the text of scripture throughout all Christendom to
make a standardized text. It’s said that there is a text older than that
supposed revised text that was not affected by the supposed revision and it is
referred to hypothetically as the “neutral” text. You see how this idea is what
strongly set forth the text-type names that are used. The so-called “conflated”
(or “blown together”) text of this supposed revision was named by Dr. Hort as
being the Byzantine text. For those of you who don’t know, the Byzantine text
is also referred to as the Antiochan text, or the Traditional text. This was
the text that underlies the King James Version of the Bible. According to Dr.
Hort’s theory, the Western text was the text that prevailed in the western
areas of Europe before the supposed revision; and (according to the theory) the
Alexandrian text was the text that prevailed in the area around Egypt before
the supposed revision.
b. Dr. Hort argued that the Traditional
text, which he also referred to as the Graeco-Syrian text, was the text that
was the result of the supposed revision. He spent his time as a result trying
to “find”, using an “eclectic” method of textual criticism, the theorized
neutral text that had not been altered by the supposed revision. Now, why would
Dr. Hort spend so much time and labor looking for that “neutral” text? What was
the hard evidence that drove him to dismiss 80-90% of all available manuscript
evidence in favor of a handful—yes, a handful—of manuscripts? Brace yourselves:
it was because he didn’t think that 8 passages in the New Testament were
supposed to be there. That’s it. He simply didn’t see why they belonged there.
But on top of that, his two favorite manuscripts (Codex Aleph and codex B,
called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) differed than the traditional Byzantine text
in these places.
c. Let me state up front that this hard
evidence took Drs. Westcott and Hort a total of 30 years of laborious study to
identify these 8 passages. If you go through their explanation and evidence for
this theory you find nothing that is fact based. Absolutely nothing. In 130
years there has been absolutely nothing to substantiate this claim. Let’s put
this into perspective:
i.
According
to Dr. Hort, there was a massive collecting and changing of the text of the
Bible wherein the notable scholars of the day would’ve been called on to “fix”
the supposed textual problems. Yet, there is not one single reference to this
Christendom-wide revision anywhere in existence. It exists only in the minds of
them who came up with it. Do you really think that there could be a collecting
and standardizing of the text of scripture on that kind of scale and no one
would say anything about it?
d. All of this theorizing and imagining was
done by Dr. Hort and others to try to explain why the Traditional Text of the
scriptures occupied 80-90% of all available manuscripts. The confusion comes
because they openly said, as it is openly taught today, that the traditional
text was based solely on “later manuscripts”. This was in contrast in their
minds to those of a different text that were supposedly older which differed
from the traditional text. How do you explain that the older manuscripts
(supposedly) that are available contradict 80-90% of all manuscripts? Well, you
simply make up a theory and run with it. Since, there hasn’t been one particle
of evidence for this theory though it has been almost totally abandoned today. It’s
kind of funny though when you look at the forums where these critics talk, and
if you read their books, every reason given to try and explain why the
Traditional text (or Byzantine, Syrian, etc.) is the text that makes up 80-90%
of all manuscript evidence except the idea that maybe it is the text that is
the original text. I read one scholar say, “We really don’t know why the text is
so widespread as it is.” Can you not think of any reason?
e. Edward Miller, who edited Dean Burgon’s
work, did a thorough job of examining the evidence of this theory. He sought to
see if there were any quotations from early church fathers or versions before
the supposed 4th century revision that Hort said resulted in the
Syrian/Byzantine/traditional text. Miller examined the Greek and Latin fathers
who died before 400 A.D. and found them to support the Traditional text in
2,630 instances. Dean Burgon said:
i.
“As
far as the Fathers who died before 400 A.D. are concerned, the question may now
be put and answered. Do they witness to the Traditional Text as existing from
the first, or do they not? The results of the evidence, both as regards the
quantity and the quality of the testimony, enable us to reply, not only that
the Traditional Text was in existence, but that it was predominant, during the
period under review.” (Burgon, The
Traditional Text, p. 116)
ii.
Miller’s
examination that resulted in those numbers was actually only taking the gospels
being quoted into consideration. It also excludes doubtful quotations and
spelling errors. If there was a case that was doubtful he decided against the
Received text, the traditional text.
f.
This
alone disproves the supposed Recension theory. In fact, in examining this
theory’s validity the Traditional text of the Bible (which underlies the King
James Version) actually has been proved to have witness to its widespread
acceptance and use as early as the 2nd century. This has been a
well-known fact for over one hundred years. It’s odd, to say the least, that
the majority of Bible translations in that length of time have all but totally
rejected it.
IV.
The
Genealogical Method
a. This view, also popularized by Dr. Hort,
is also all but totally rejected today. Primarily because it proves to be
impossible. Hort conjectured according to the idea that manuscripts could be
mapped out like family trees. These two manuscripts put together created this
one here, and so forth. This method actually is on its face an impossibility
for a number of reasons:
i.
A
manuscript’s history must be completely known before one can think of anything
like genealogical evidence.
ii.
If
there has ever been any mixture of texts it proves to be impossible.
b. The first point is manifestly true. If
you don’t know anything about where a manuscript came from then you obviously
cannot make a family-tree to show its history and origin. The second point,
that if there is any mixture in the text the genealogical method is useless, Dr.
Hort himself admits, and openly admits in his writing that there has indeed
been mixture. The results were that he didn’t apply the genealogical method to
his work in the NT. Even in his writings about the genealogical method Dr. Hort
didn’t cite any actual manuscripts. He only used hypothetical illustrations,
and made imaginary charts to illustrate his point. The reason being
obvious—there wasn’t a single real example of it. Strange though, isn’t it? Why
put forth a theory which you yourself also state to be useless?
c. Drs. Westcott and Hort plainly show why
they would do something so strange. The genealogical method, as described by
them, shows in their minds how that if you have 995 manuscripts that agree, and
5 that don’t agree with the majority, and you were able to prove that the 995
came from the same source, that the 995 should be taken to represent only a
single witness as opposed to a majority of witnesses. The problems with this
view are obvious when considering the original copies of scripture being a
single manuscript themselves by which all copies must trace their origin
ultimately.
d. But you see easily what the goal is of
even putting forth a notion in the first place which you must remember they
themselves also admitted as being invalid and did not practice. It does away
with a majority versus a minority of manuscript testimony. Think about it, if
you put forth a notion that genealogical “proof” should take a majority of
witnesses as one if you could show a common manuscript source, and at the same
time said that there was a major revision of the text that created that
majority in the first place, what would obviously be your goal? The underlying
goal would be to supplant the majority with the minority. It’s important to
remember that both these points put forth by Drs. Westcott and Hort have been
disproven for over 120 years.
e. This is plainly seen in their writings
that at the end of 52 pages of discussing the genealogical method, which begins
on page 39, on page 92 we read the following assertion, “The fundamental Text
of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the
dominant Antiochan or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the fourth
century.” So by putting forth this statement Drs. Westcott and Hort actually state
that the Traditional Text underlying the King James Bible actually was the
dominant text of the second half of the fourth century. That is, that it was
the most widely accepted and most widely used text of the scriptures. They then
put forth a genealogical method which is designed to undo a majority versus
minority of witnesses. Can their motive be any less clear? Their desire was to
undermine the Traditional Text of the scriptures. This is actually a fact which
is generally accepted by most textual critics regardless of their own views.
V.
“Most
ancient evidence only”
a. One of the best passages to turn to in
order to see all the different ways that the phrase “the oldest and best
manuscripts don’t have this passage” is stated is Mark 16:9-20. Perhaps in the
conclusion to this series I’ll go over the supposed issues around that passage.
But in my copy of the NLT the margin says, “The most reliable early manuscripts
of the Gospel of Mark end at verse 8.” In my copy of the ESV the margin says
this, “Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8.” In my copy of the CEB the
margin says this, “In most critical editions of the Gk New Testament, the
Gospel of Mark end at 16:8.” In the NASB the passage is in brackets. In my copy
of the NIV, the 2008 edition, they don’t even try to hide anything. It says in
the margin, “Serious doubt exists as to whether these verses belong to the
Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display
certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style, and theological content that are
unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original
ending has been lost.”
b. That’s quite a statement! Now, what is
all this based on? If someone reads that statement that the ’08 NIV has it
seems to paint the picture that it’s all said and done right? Well, the NKJV’s
marginal note is a little more honest. It says referring to verses 9-20, “They
are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other
manuscripts of Mark contain them.” That puts it in perspective doesn’t it! Two
manuscripts are enough to throw doubt on a passage of scripture 12 verses long?
Out of thousands of manuscripts, patristic quotations, lectionaries, and early
versions of scripture dating to the second century—two manuscripts are enough
to convince a body of scholars? Is this even conceivable? Well, maybe these are
two really great manuscripts of such impeccable quality that their witness must
be taken as fact.
c. This is just one example of the idea that
“oldest is best”. They refer to these two old manuscripts as “the most reliable
early manuscripts” and “important early manuscripts”. Other people refer to
them as “the oldest and best manuscripts”. James White refers to them as
“great” in his description of them. When these two manuscripts agree that a
passage of scripture is not supposed to be there you will find most critics
will quickly agree with them. They are esteemed to be that important. Usually,
that marginal reference that says, “This verse isn’t supposed to be there,” is
usually based on these two manuscripts. Oftentimes, it is only these two
manuscripts, or sometimes only one of them by itself, that will be taken as
absolute in making such comments or changes. But what is it that puts that
authority on them?
d. In actuality, it is their age. For the
longest time these two codices were the oldest manuscripts in existence. Now we
have a few partial manuscripts that are estimated to be older. Also, the weight
of these two is seen in that not only are they old, but they contain a larger
part of the new testament than most other manuscripts. Both are estimated to
have originated in the mid to late 4th century.
e. Before I continue, there is some
misinformation about the codex Sinaiticus. Some people openly state that it was
found in a trash can at St. Catherine’s monastery about to be burned. That’s
not entirely accurate. It was Tischendorf who found the codex Sinaiticus when
he was visiting St. Catherine’s monastery. During his first trip there he saw
monks burning copies of the Septuagint. He was able to look at them after
rebuking the monks for burning them. Later, on a second trip there, he spoke to
an authority in the monastery that brought the Sinaiticus manuscript out of his
closet wrapped in a red cloth. What is interesting to note is the belief by
some people like Bart Erhman that St. Catherine’s Monastery is actually a
“manuscript gravesite” and not a library. He believes it is actually a place
where manuscripts that were known to be corrupted were sent to be stored and
disposed of. Now, even though Erhman himself is an apostate who has turned away
from Christianity, his point still stands. The fact is that even Tischendorf
himself actually stated that he saw the monks there burning copies of
scripture. Just because a monastery houses something doesn’t make it
authoritative. St. Catherine’s Monastery also houses a copy of the Ashtiname of
Muhammad, which is the prophet of Islam.
f.
The
question at hand is, are these two manuscripts of such an impeccable character
that they should be given such prominence? Codex Aleph is called Sinaiticus,
and codex B is called Vaticanus. Let’s consider some things about these two
manuscripts that are fact:
i.
Neither
manuscript was brought to light until about 1500 years after their supposed
original dates.
ii.
Sinaiticus
(Codex Aleph) was kept in a monastery, and Vaticanus (Codex B) was kept on a
library shelf, and neither was esteemed to be of any importance at all until
they were “discovered” there.
iii.
Aleph
is esteemed to be Alexandrian in text-type, and B was esteemed by Dr. Hort to
be “neutral” according to his own definition.
iv.
Philip
Mauro said about these two manuscripts, “It should be observed, before we
proceed with this question, that the agreeing testimony (where they do agree)
of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS cannot be properly regarded as having the force
of two independent witnesses; for there are sufficient evidences, both internal
and external, to warrant the conclusion that these two Codices are very closely
related, that they are, in fact, copies of the same original, itself a very
corrupt transcript of the New Testament.” (Mauro, Which Version?, as edited by Fuller in True or False, p. 82)
v.
Dean
Burgon, who spent five and a half years collating all five of the old uncial
manuscripts stated, “So manifest are the disfigurements jointly and exclusively
exhibited by the two codices (Vatican and Sinaitic) that, instead of accepting
them as two independent witnesses to the inspired original, we are constrained
to regard them as little more than a single reproduction of one and the same
scandalously corrupt and comparatively late copy.” (Burgon, as quoted in True or False?, p. 74)
vi.
Dr.
F.H.A Scrivener published a full collation of the Codex Sinaiticus in 1864. In
it he stated: “…the Codex is covered with such alterations brought in by at
least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every
page, others occasional, or limited to separate portions of the MS, many of
these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but for the greater part
belonging to the sixth or seventh century.” (Mauro, Which Version?, as edited by Fuller in True or False?, p. 75)
vii.
Philip
Mauro, commenting on Dr. Scrivener’s statement just read, said this: “But more
than that, Dr. Scrivener tells us that the evident purpose of the
thorough-going revision which he places in the 6th or 7th
century was to make the Ms conform to manuscripts in vogue at that time which
were “far nearer to our modern Textus Receptus.” The evidential value of these
numerous attempts at correcting the Sinaitic Codex and of the plainly
discernible purpose of the most important of those attempts is such that, by
all the sound rules and principles of evidence, this “ancient witness,” so far
from tending to raise doubts as to the trustworthiness and textual purity of
the Received Text, should be regarded as affording strong confirmation thereof.
From these facts, therefore, we deduce: first that the impurity of the Codex
Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those best acquainted
with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally
cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose; and second that the Text
recognized in those days as the standard Text, and by which the defective Codex
now so highly rated by scholars was corrected, was one that agreed with our
Textus Receptus.” (ibid. p. 76)
viii.
Dean
Burgon summed up the state of these “old uncials” very succinctly. Remember
that he had collated all five of the old uncials himself, and was not taking
any information from secondary sources, but indeed from his own personal
examination. He had this to say of the earliest four of them: “Singular to
relate, the first, second, fourth, and fifth of these codices (B, Aleph, C, and
D), but especially B and aleph, have within the last twenty years established a
tyrannical ascendency over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be
fitly spoken of as blind superstition. It matters nothing that all four are
discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine
out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS besides, but even from one
another. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate
pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked. And yet it admits of only one
satisfactory explanation: [viz.] that in different degrees they all five
exhibit a fabricated text. Between the first two (B and aleph) there subsists
an amount of sinister resemblance, which proves that they must have been
derived at no very remote period from the same corrupt original. Tischendorf
insists that they stand asunder in every page; as well as differ widely from
the commonly received Text, with which they have been carefully collated. On
being referred to this standard, in the Gospels alone, B is found to omit at
least 2877 words: to add, 536: to substitute, 935: to transpose, 2098: to
modify, 1132 (in all 7578):--the corresponding figures for aleph being
severally 3455, 839, 1114, 2299, 1265 (in all 8972). And be it remembered that
the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are
by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive
verses in which these two MSS differ the one from the other, than two
consecutive verses in which they entirely agree.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 11-12)
ix.
In
commenting on the lack of Patristic evidence as to the existence of codices
Vatican and Sinaitic, Burgon points out that: “…Irenaeus and Hippolytus,
Athanasius and Didymus, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa, Basil and
Ephraem, Epiphanius and Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Isidore of
Pelusium, Nilus and Nonnus, Proclus and Severianus, and the two Cyrils and
Theordoret—one and all—show themselves strangers to the text of B and aleph…We
read and marvel.” (Burgon, The Revision
Revised, pp. 290-91)
x.
Some
may assert that the differences between these two manuscripts are nothing more
than the result of scribal errors and time. Regarding this thought, Dean Burgon
stated: “That they exhibit fabricated Texts is demonstrable. No amount of
honest copying—persevered in for any number of centuries—could by possibility
have resulted in two such documents. Separated from one another in actual date
by 50, perhaps by 100 years, they must needs have branched off from a common corrupt
ancestor, and straightway become exposed continuously to fresh depraving
influences.” (Burgon, The Revision
Revised, p. 318)
1. Consider Burgon’s statement there for a
minute. Contrast this with the fact that the Traditional Text, even if only
measured from the 4th century, has come down to us with little
variation at all over that time span of 1500 years. Dr. Hort himself admitted
that the text dominant in the 4th century was essentially the Textus
Receptus—the text underlying the King James Bible. You know, that text he tried
to supplant.
xi.
Speaking
of the character of these two famous codices, Burgon states: “The impurity of
the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but of fact…In
the Gospels alone Codex B (Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less
than 1491 times. It bears traces of careless transcription on every page. Codex
Sinaiticus ‘abounds with errors of the eye and pen to an extent not indeed
unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance.’
On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness.
Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or
begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is
omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding,
occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.” (Burgon, as quoted by
Mauro, True or False?, p. 77)
xii.
Now,
reconsider the statements made by scholars about these “oldest and best”, “most
reliable”, and “important early” manuscripts. James White is actually
completely aware of all these defects, and comments in one of his books
something to the effect of ‘every old manuscript is going to gather some
corrections along the way’. He still refers in the appendix of that book that
these two manuscripts are “great”. Could there even be a more ridiculous
casting aside of reality?
xiii.
If
these two manuscripts were witnesses to a murder that were called on to give
their testimonies in a court of law, they would be excused as witnesses.
Contradicting each other endlessly, changing their own testimony ten times, and
showing collusion between themselves when they do agree to statements wholly
contrary to every other particle of objective fact. No lawyer in their right
mind would allow such terrible witnesses on the stand. Somehow though the same
kind of testimony is accepted as gospel truth by scholars for over the last 100
years. It is truly remarkable to consider.
VI.
The
“oldest”?
a. Now, do you remember what the issue is?
“Oldest is best” right? That’s why these two manuscripts are held in such high
esteem right? But is that really true? If you noticed, I have referred to a
particular statement from Drs. Westcott and Hort. Let me restate it now:
i.
“The
fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question
identical with the dominant Antiochan or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half
of the fourth century.”
b. That title, the Antiochan or
Graeco-Syrian Text, is what Hort called the Byzantine/Traditional Text. Notice
that he says that the “fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS is beyond all
question identical” with it. In other words, the Textus Receptus, which is
reputed as being “only based on later manuscripts”, Dr. Hort is here admitting
that it is identical with the text in question. In fact he states that it was
the dominant Text of the second half of…which century? The 4th
century. Now why is that interesting? It’s very interesting because Codices
Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph) are dated only to the 4th
century themselves. To show you that I’m not alone in putting this together,
here are some quotes:
i.
“And
not only so, but, at the time of the appearance of the R.V. Drs. Westcott and
Hort put forth an elaborate explanation of the principles adopted by them in
the making of their “New Greek Text” (which up to that time had been privately
circulated among the Revisionists, and under injunctions of strictest secrecy)
and in it they admitted that the Textus Receptus is substantially identical
with the Text used in the Churches of Syria and elsewhere in and prior to the
fourth century.” (Mauro, as quoted in True
or False?, p. 67)
ii.
“In
this connection it should be always borne in mind that those text-makers who
profess to adopt as their controlling principle the acceptance on disputed
points of the testimony of ‘the most ancient manuscripts,’ have not acted
consistently with that principle. For the fact is that, in the compilation of
their Greek Texts they have not really followed the most ancient manuscripts,
but have been controlled by two manuscripts only. Those two are followed even
against the counter evidence of all other available manuscripts, amounting to
over a thousand [now thousands], some of which are practically of equal age,
and against the evidence also of Versions and of quotations from the writings
of ‘fathers’ much older than the two Codices referred to.” (ibid. p. 73)
iii.
“It
is admitted on all hands that the Text used as the basis of the Authorized
Version correctly represents a Text known to have been widely (if not
everywhere) in use as early as the second century (for the Peschito and Old
Latin Versions, corroborated by patristic quotations afford ample proof of
that). On the other hand it is not known that the two Codices we are discussing
represent anything but copies of a bad original, made worse in the copying.”
(ibid. p. 82)
iv.
“My
thesis is then that it was B (Vaticanus) and Aleph (Sinaiticus) and their
forerunners with Origen who revised the ‘Antioch’ text.” (Fuller, Which Bible?, pp. 66-7)
c. The witnesses for the Traditional Text,
which underlies the King James Bible, go back to the second century. It has
widespread witness varying in time, region, reliability, and continuity down
through 1800 years of transmission. It was the textual family trusted by the
Reformers. Whereas, the two great uncials Codices B and Aleph, Vaticanus and
Sinaiticus respectively, have come to us with no known history, readings unique
to themselves, readings which regularly contradict each other, belonging to the
textual family propagated by Roman Catholicism (hence the name Vaticanus for
B), little to no patrisitic support, little to no lectionary support, little to
no early version support, dating no earlier than the 4th century,
and not held in any importance until the mid-19th century when they
were discovered sitting on a shelf and sitting in an obscure monastery’s
closet.
d. I have too much reverence for God’s Word
to entertain the silliness of accepting such manuscripts as codices B and Aleph
as reliable witnesses to anything but their own corruption.
e. So take your pick as to which kind of
text you’d like. People who spend their time looking into the divining cup of
eclecticism and textual criticism rarely come out unscathed in their faith.
Listen to the names of these noted textual critics:
i.
“As
early as 1908 Rendell Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at
all been settled but was more than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled.”
ii.
“Two
years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that ‘the Ultimate’ (New
Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is
forever irrecoverable.”
iii.
“And
in 1941 Kirsopp Lake, after a lifetime spent in the study of the New Testament
text, delivered the following judgment: ‘In spite of the claims of Westcott and
Hort and of von Soden, we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it
is quite likely that we never shall.”
iv.
“In
1937, for example, F.G. Kenyon revived Griesbach’s contention that the text of
the New Testament had not been as accurately preserved as the texts of other
ancient books.”
v.
“As
G. Zuntz (1953) remarks, ‘the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to
that [skepticism] which inclines towards regarding ‘the original text’ as an
unattainable mirage.’ H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty
of the naturalistic method of New Testament textual criticism. ‘In general,’ he
says, ‘the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text
of the New Testament, according to its nature, must be and remain a
hypothesis.”
vi.
“And
R.M. Grant (1963) expresses himself still more despairingly. ‘The primary goal
of New Testament textual study,’ he tells us, ‘remains the recovery of what the
New Testament writer wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal
is well nigh impossible.”
f.
Do
some homework into textual criticism and you will find that its origins are had
in Roman Catholicism as a means of undermining the scriptural authority
propagated by the Reformers. It was also greatly influenced by German
rationalism and naturalism. You go down through the list of noted textual
critics and these end up rejecting any idea that the Bible came from anywhere
other than the minds of men. What do you expect when you enter into a system
that offers you nothing but conjecture? Established facts being traded in for
subjective judgments: because that’s all that eclectic textual criticism offers
you.
g. Do you not think that those subtle
marginal notes affect people’s faith? A man named Craig Thompson wrote an
autobiography of his growing up in a supposed Evangelical Christian home. It
was ranked by Time magazine as number
one on its best comics list in 2003, and number eight on its list of best
comics of the decade. It was written as his way of coming out to his parents as
no longer being a Christian. Throughout the work he details abuse, his own
sexual misconduct, and plenty of references to Church, and he actually begins
studying to enter ministry. It’s clear from the work that he heard a false
gospel of “go to heaven, it’s a lot better than hell, don’t you want to be
happy!” The Gospel should not be presented like a Prozac commercial. But what
is notable is that he mentions, and pictures, the marginal notes in an NIV
Bible. He has a discussion with his pastor about the book of Ecclesiastes, and
it ends with this:
i.
“[Pastor]
Frankly, it may be that scribes “tacked” their own comments on to the original
text over centuries of transcribing. But don’t let that discredit God’s Word. Instead,
recognize this as a growth process of the Bible.”
ii.
“[Craig
is thinking] Growth process? This I couldn’t accept. I had been taught the words of the Bible came
straight from the mouth of God. If
indeed they were subtly modified by generations of scribes and watered down by
translations, then—for me—truth was cancelled out.”
h. The whole book seems designed to slander
Biblical Christianity and overthrow the faith of young Christians. Because who
reads graphic novels? Young people read graphic novels. The pastor in the book
gives a typical response from the school of textual criticism: “Scribes tacked
stuff on.” The young man’s response was, “If indeed they were subtly modified
by generations of scribes and watered down by translations, then—for me—truth
was cancelled out.” I do wonder how many youth groups teach out of study Bibles
that give those same marginal references and comments.
VII.
In
closing
a. In closing, I’ll just end with the
concluding paragraphs from Wilbur Norman Pickering’s excellent work on John
William Burgon and the New Testament:
i.
“When
all the evidence has been fully assimilated so as to make possible a definitive
decision for each variant, the Textus Receptus will probably be found to need
correction in between 500 and 1,000 places throughout the whole New Testament,
the great majority of the errors being of a minor sort—many of them would not
make a difference in a translation. By contrast, any of the ‘critical’ editions
will be found to differ some 5,000 times from the Traditional Text—a large
number being serious differences. And so I venture to hold, now that the
question has been raised, both the learned and the well-informed will come
gradually to see, that no other course respecting the Words of the New
Testament is so strongly justified by the evidence, none so sound and
large-minded, none so reasonable in every way, none so consonant with
intelligent faith, none so productive of guidance and comfort and hope, as to
maintain against all the assaults of corruption the Traditional Text.”
(Pickering, as quoted in True or False?,
p. 305)
No comments:
Post a Comment