... in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. Through the prayers of our holy Fathers, Lord
Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us and save us. Amen. Glory
to You, our God, Glory to You.
O Heavenly King,
the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, You are everywhere and fill all things, Treasury
of blessings, and Giver of life: come and abide in us, and cleanse us from every
impurity, and save our souls, O Good One.
Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal,
have mercy on us (three times).
Glory be to the Father,
and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, as it is now, was in the beginning, and ever
shall be, world without end. Amen.
Text
Criticism
Specialists
We do not pretend to be text
critics. That honor belongs to those few
who have access to the ancient manuscripts; who have the skills to evaluate and
read such ancient manuscripts; and who have access to the wide variety of
laboratory instruments required for such analysis, evaluation and reading.
The ancient manuscript documents
themselves are spread around the globe in a few select libraries. One must be a bit of a world traveler with
fairly deep pockets to cover such a broad scope effectively.
It is true that considerable effort
is being made to provide digitized copies of these documents, but at this point
in time there is nothing on the table that I could begin to afford in simply
acquiring a reasonable set of such copies.
Nor is there any guarantee that I could even read such copies with
proficiency if I had them at my disposal.
I’ve tried occasionally, and sometimes I can pick out a word or two.
I believe we are talking about a
skill set that takes the better part of a lifetime to develop with any real
proficiency, and may God bless those who have been chosen, and who give their
lives to such work. This boils down to a
relatively few individuals, who can properly be called text critics.
These honored and privileged few
catalog, collate, and publish their findings.
Eventually, publishers acquire reduced sets of the evidence; set it in
readable type, and put it in print, where we can find it in a published book, a
Greek text of the New Testament with a critical apparatus. Have you ever tried reading such an
apparatus? Good for you. It wasn’t that easy, was it?
Along the way there are numerous
opportunities for errors, and precious few experts with skills enough to catch
them. As I understand the problem, there
is also a considerable number of manuscripts that have never been thoroughly
cataloged.
It is at this point where you and I
enter the picture. I’m working from:
Nestle, Eberhard, Erwin Nestle, and Kurt
Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece (Württembergische Bibelanstalt Stuttgart, Stuttgart,
1927, 1968 reprint): NTG
If I have a problem, I consult:
Hodges, Zane C., and Arthur L. Farstad, The
Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text (Nelson, Nashville,
1982), or
Society
of Biblical Literature Greek New Testament, https://www.biblegateway.com/
(Society of Biblical Literature and Logos Bible Software, 2010): SBLGNT, which
is available on line at
Bible Gateway Word Search, https://www.biblegateway.com/
Some of you may be working from:
United
Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies), or its companion volume
Metzger,
Bruce M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (United
Bible Societies, London, 1971).
Eclectic
Method
Now I have a protest, and that
concerning the eclectic method. I
protest the eclectic method.
As an engineer if I select several
samples for test specimens, I am not free to tinker with those specimens prior
to, during, or after the test. Should
one of the specimens exhibit exceptional behavior, either good or bad, I must
still search for ways to explain that behavior.
If there is an unexplained premature failure, then I may be subjecting
customers to premature failures and my employer to complaints and
lawsuits. If there is an unexplained
success, I may be missing an opportunity for product improvement, which my
competitor may find and employ. In
either case, I cannot afford to ignore the outliers, or throw them away. Nor may I simply extract the best features
from each specimen to construct a super-specimen. I cannot simply mix all the parts together
and report one homogenous average part: that would be incredibly
dishonest. I must return to the drawing
board, make design changes, and begin again with new samples.
Our problem is quite a bit more
difficult, new samples are not being made, although some might still be
found. Our problem is more like finding
our great-grandmothers photo album, selecting the best features (in our
opinion) of each picture, cutting them up, and constructing a “best possible” composite. This neglects and practically destroys the
original data, making it hard, even impossible, to sort out. I protest the destruction of data
and evidence.
I would never tolerate such a method
in my test facility or in my great-grandmothers photo album, and I have trouble
accepting it in this case as well. It
appears to cloud the real original evidence.
Providence
I also believe in the ongoing
providence of God. That being said, the
argument may be overstated or understated.
I do not believe that the providence of God guarantees a perfect Bible
for us to freely read. I believe that
such a perfect Bible exists, but also that we have no right to touch it: our
hands are simply not clean enough (Revelation 5). It seems to me that what we have is more
related to the Little Book (Revelation 10:8-11).
In any case, the promise of God is
that the Holy Ghost will lead us into all truth. This is not a license to ride roughshod over
the Scripture we do have as though it didn’t exist, as though it didn’t clearly
say what it says, as though we have the right to alter what we wish in the name
of love. I protest the abuse of
the Holy Ghost, and the Scripture.
The perfect Bible did not fall out
of the sky as a single volume. Rather
The Church[1] and the Bible grew up
together, side by side, as the Apostolic witnesses recorded what they had seen
and heard, while at the same time evangelizing the world around them. It appears that neither The Church on earth,
nor the Bible on earth are perfect; but rather they are being perfected.[2] What the providence of God guarantees is,
that in spite of sin, The Church, growing as she is, would strive to preserve
whatever the Holy Ghost taught. Does
that exist in a single ancient manuscript?
I don’t know. What I do know is
that it makes no sense to hide evidence by making it eclectic. Within the providence of God, a single whole
document has a chance of being a better witness than any eclectic version.
Options
Today, it appears to me that there
are two main options, the Alexandrian text and the Byzantine text. For years I had followed my mentors and
teachers Hodges and Farstad:
Hodges, Zane C., and Arthur L. Farstad, The
Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text (Nelson, Nashville,
1982)
However, the longer I study, the
more one fact has weighed on me. There
do not appear to be any ancient witnesses for the Byzantine text-type prior to
the fifth century: none. I’ve recently
discovered that this is not completely true, by discovering two, very small
earlier witnesses, hidden in plain sight, in the NTG critical apparatus. Nevertheless, these two tiny witnesses are
insufficient to support any theory.
“Alexandrian
text-type,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_text-type
“Byzantine
text-type,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_text-type
Pickering, Wilbur N., The Identity of
the New Testament Text II, http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/wnp/index.html. See especially Appendix H, “What Difference
Does It Make?”
If the theory that the Byzantine
text is the best witness to the original, but all early copies were worn to
shreds from excessive use, we would expect to see evidence of those
shreds. What we do see, presently looks
a lot like nothing. So we have taken the
position that no text theory can stand on nothing. This brings us to the conclusion that the
Alexandrian text is the better witness to the original text.
If we conclude that the Alexandrian
text is the better witness to the original text, yet nonetheless reject the
eclectic method, we must still select one single representative of that text;
and I, for better or worse, have tried to resurrect B from the NTG critical
apparatus. Hence, B was chosen, not
because it is merely oldest and best, but because it is not eclectic. If that proves to be a wise decision, we may
have made some progress; and if not, we have done no more harm than the
eclectic versions which continue to dominate printed and published copies
including SBLGNT. Fortunately for us, Romans 1:1-32 is not a
fertile source of variation.
Obligations
Even if B accidentally turns out to
be the best surviving witness to the original, we still must explain the
existence of the Byzantine text. The
Byzantine text comes with very good credentials, as does the Alexandrian text.[3] The experts who first published the Byzantine
text in the fourth or fifth century were far superior in skill, in command of
Greek idiom, in knowledge of the Greek language, and in close tangency with
ancient manuscripts, to anyone, or even to any team on the field today.
This makes the Byzantine text the
best and most important commentary on the Bible, ever produced by man. So it stands to reason that one of the
ancient Byzantine manuscripts is the best surviving witness to this commentary
and we would be foolish to neglect it, or any of its readings.
This also means that the best modern
authorities on this subject in the English language are still Hodges and
Farstad, Robinson and Pierpont, and their heirs. In the Greek language, scholars of the Greek
Orthodox Church will always have the edge, and we will do well to draw as close
to them as possible: Greek is their first language. As far as other scholars are concerned, the
Germans, for all their faults, seem to have worked as hard as anybody else.
Conclusion
We began with the text itself. While this must be an ongoing debate, which
we will not trivialize, we have taken the position that the Alexandrian text is
the text of the New Testament, and where difficulties arise we have tried to
recover B.
Having said that, we currently
believe that the Byzantine text represents the oldest and most accurate
commentary on the New Testament. Variations
offer several possibilities, including:
·
In a culture where reading
and writing were the privilege of a few, some of the Byzantine notations were
made to clarify the pulpit reading of Scripture.
·
Other notations appear to
be liturgical in nature; in other words, they provide a logical response to
what is read.[4]
·
Some variations appear to
follow local grammatical and spelling preferences. If the local documents were not modified to
suit local grammatical and spelling preferences the Bible may have been very
difficult to read or understand in that place.
·
Other variations appear to
follow cultic or theological opinions, which may or may not be corrected by the
Byzantine text.[5]
·
Most importantly, the Byzantine
experts may have recovered and preserved a lost original reading.
In any case, whether the Byzantine
text does or does not best represent the original text, it must be received
with considerable respect. No modern
student of Scripture can possibly develop an equivalent understanding of Greek
idiom as explained by the Byzantine text.
It would be a fool’s errand indeed to neglect the Byzantine readings, so
we have given them our most careful attention.
We are not simply free to say that this or that passage is or is not
part of the Bible.
Until now we have believed that
there were no witnesses to the Byzantine text prior to the fourth century. That which simply does not exist at an earlier
date cannot possibly be original. No
theoretical explanation can be allowed to stand without any evidence. That being said, we are now discovering a few
scant traces of Byzantine readings from the second century: so no final
conclusions may be drawn.
The work of Robinson and Pierpont is
cited frequently. For those who are not
students of text criticism, these gentlemen are among the latest defenders of
the Byzantine school, which maintain that the Byzantine text is the best
representative of the original. They
continue the contributions of Hodges and Farstad, my mentors and teachers. So their disagreement is received with utmost
respect, knowing full well that fresh evidence could be uncovered that firmly
establishes the Byzantine text as the best representative of the original.
What I would like to see in a
printed Greek edition is B (or possibly another), which has not been altered,
as the basic document body. I would like
to have a first apparatus that details all the Alexandrian variations and fills
in lacunae. I would like to have a
second apparatus that provides the details and variations in the Byzantine
text.
Whatever the future outcome may be,
we wish to dispel the mythological theory that somehow or other, the text of
the New Testament is in doubt. Readers
will be pleased to see for themselves that most variations are about word
order, spelling variations, and other seeming trivia. Very few variations result in serious
translatable differences. On the other
hand, when translatable differences are found, these may be sizable and
influence a fairly large percentage of the New Testament text.[6] Readers of Romans 1:1-32 do not have to cope
with such massive problems. The Romans
1:1-32 variations are clearly marked so that readers can form their own judgments. We regret that we lack the wisdom to deal
with variations that are neither Alexandrian nor Byzantine.
It appears that the champions of the
Byzantine text and I have started tunneling from opposite sides of the
mountain, hoping to meet in the middle.
We haven’t got there yet. I
certainly respect them. I cannot speak
for or with those who embrace eclectic methods.
The textual landscape shifts every year.
So, we hope that younger, better minds will pick up the pursuit of the
text and bring it to a universally received conclusion. “Even so, Come LORD Jesus.”[7]
[1] The
Church, not the churches, is completely and fully defined in Hebrews 12:22-29. As this passage in Hebrews so clearly
teaches, The Church in heaven and The Church on earth are one and only one
Church. Whenever, the churches on earth
deliberately decide, in one great final act of defiance and rebellion, that it
is somehow or other good for them to be out of step with The Church, they
immediately remove themselves from The Church; committing a sin worthy of
death. Death is what they most certainly
believe, and death is what they preach.
They have lost their anchor of salvation.
That being said, there are many claimants to be The Church. They cannot all be right. It is possible that none of these claimants
is right. Those who are wise will
struggle earnestly with Hebrews 12:22-29 until they have made it their life
goal to live a life of repentance, always striving to get in step with heaven. Heaven makes no compromises, and tolerates no
dissensions; because all of its members in heaven are perfect, while all of its
members on earth are being perfected.
[2] Our
assurance, or confidence does not rest on a perfect earthly church, a perfect
earthly Bible, or on perfect behavior.
Our assurance, and confidence rest on the work of the Holy Ghost within
our hearts. It is impossible that the Holy
Ghost contradict Himself. Therefore,
what is clear in Scripture cannot be contradicted. This also suggests that we ought to give more
careful attention to the Nicene statement of faith, rather than incessantly
inventing our own statements of faith.
As Christians we stand or fall together.
I certainly want to stand with those Church elders who bravely and
lovingly stood together in 325-381 AD. This
is not a time for me to go off on my own tangent. This is a time when we must find each other
and stand, if necessary unto death. The
Church is highly visible, as is the Bible.
We need to put our shoulders to the yoke of faith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_Martyrs_of_Sebaste
[3] Constantine
the Great moved the Capital from Rome, Italy to New Rome, Byzantium or
Constantinople, Turkey, shortly after He became a Christian. In that same series of events, Constantine
legalized Christianity, and brought into focus, with New Rome’s financial and
political support, the efforts of the greatest teams of biblical scholars that have
ever lived. These teams fixed the
locations of ancient archaeological sites in and around Jerusalem, and
recovered manuscripts that were lost because of the persecution of Christians.
Alexandria’s credentials are no less impressive. Founded by Alexander the Great, it rapidly
became the premier center for learning in the Greek Empire and for centuries
into the Roman Empire. It had few if any
rivals. Ostensibly, any document of
significance brought into Alexandria, stayed there. A copy was returned to the bearer, but the
original was archived in the Alexandrian library. Whether this report is perfectly accurate or
not, Alexandria, and the Alexandrian library were truly impressive. The chief flaw with documents from Alexandria
appears to be that certain cults may have modified original manuscripts and
manuscript copies with notes supporting their own heresy.
Documents from either location must be treated with utmost
respect. If Alexandrian documents are
noted with heretical comments, the chief guardians against heresy can only be
found among Constantine’s teams of scholars in Byzantium (Constantinople). Old Rome will eventually rise to a place of prominence
as a center of learning; yet at this period of history, Rome is not that
developed.
We may never be able, not before the return of Christ, to sort
this out perfectly, finding one cohesive theory that explains all the evidence,
receiving the agreement and approval of the whole Christian Church on earth. Nevertheless, such agreement should be our
worthy goal.
[4] “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.
Matthew 6:13b.
[5] For
example as with the filioque controversy today which still divides the Christian
East from the Christian West. Or with
the monothelite controversy today which still distinguishes the Oriental
Orthodox from others, mostly due to misunderstanding. Or as with the Mar Thoma tradition: who knows
how that fits into the Grand scheme of things.
Everybody has denominational distinctives. It is these distinctives which rightfully or wrongfully
divide us. While such distinctives
rarely make overt changes to our Bibles, they still modify our translational
preferences, and litter the pages of our separate study Bibles.
[6]
Such as the endings to Mark.
[7] Revelation
22:20
[8] If
you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations, please repost,
share, or use any of them as you wish.
No rights are reserved. They are
designed and intended for your free participation. They were freely received, and are freely
given. No other permission is required
for their use.
No comments:
Post a Comment