|
|
| |
|
| by Erik Wait |
| |
 |
| |
The following doctrinal declaration of the Westminster Confession (Chapter 1, Section 8) reveals something of the nature of this section of bibliography. I want to briefly examine it, noting several different factors.
“The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language or every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.”
The important factors relating to the transmission of the Bible are that the Bible was directly inspired by God Himself. The Bible was primarily written in Hebrew and has been kept pure by the sovereign providence of God. The Bible has been preserved by the sovereign providence as been copied, transmitted, and translated through out the centuries under the sovereign providential protection of God. Thus the Bibles that we use today in the modern church are authentic and may be used with absolute confidence by the people of God.
The “transmission of the Bible” is that aspect of the Bibliology that deals with the questions of, “How did we get our modern Bible?” “Is my modern Bible truly reliable?” “Is there any one translation or version that is more reliable than another?”
These and other important questions will be addressed in this Chapter. There are many questions that are now “in process,” and will probably not be answered completely until further textual examination is completed. Thus there will continue to be differences of opinion on this subject. However, it is our intent here to examine the remarkable way that the original revelation of God has been faithfully transmitted to out modern translations, thereby providing a solid foundation of personal understanding and further comprehensive study.
When we examine the history of the transmission of the Bible, we will primarily limit ourselves to the New Testament, for the Old Testament Scriptures simply “tagged along” with the development of the New Testament Bible as far as the church is concerned. It is beyond the scope of this class to deal with all of the particulars of the transmission of the Old Testament text. The history of the New Testament may be divided into several basic time periods, which we will follow as we examine the transmission of the text. [78]
The Period Of Production (60-100 AD)
This is our solid beginning, for it represents the time period in which the revelation of God was communicated by divine inspiration. Every document was written during this time period and eventually canonized in the Christian Bible. Due to the nature of inspiration, we began with a Bible that was absolutely infallible and inerrant in its original production.
The Period Of Reduplication (up to 325 AD)
This is the first critical step as we move away from the inspired autographs, for this time period represents the copying and duplication of both the autographs and early copies. There are several important factors that contribute to the development of the text during this time period, and one point especially to keep in mind is this:
“The original New Testament manuscripts were written under special conditions, under the inspiration of God, and the copies were made and preserved under special conditions, under the singular care and providence of God.” [79]
One of the best ways to develop and defend the accurate copying of the New Testament text is through the writings of the church fathers. Although they do not represent a primary witness to the text of the New Testament, they do serve two very important secondary roles. First, they give overwhelming support to the existence of the 27 authoritative books of the New Testament canon. Second, their quotations are so numerous and widespread that if there were not New Testament manuscripts available, the New Testament could be reproduced from the writings of the early church fathers alone. Thus we conclude that there was widespread copying of the New Testament before and during the time the church fathers, and their use of the Scripture coincides with the copies that we have from later dates.
The Development Of The New Testament Copies
The multiplicity of manuscripts produces a corresponding number of variant readings. This is especially true of the New Testament as compared to the Old, for there were no “official” copies being made as in the case with Israel. There are several very important questions that must be asked and answered in regards to the variant readings. For example, “How many variants are there?” The number continually increases due to the discovery of additional manuscripts, but the most recent count is that there are over 200,00 recognized and known variants in the New Testament manuscripts (copies).
Second, “How are the variants counted?” In actuality the number of variants is rather insignificant due to the manner in which they are counted. For example, if one single word were misspelled in 3,000 of the 5,000 manuscripts in existence today, it would be counted as 3,000 variants. In other words, if there was one manuscript which was the mother of an entire family of 3,000 manuscripts which were all copied from the mother text then any singular variant would be duplicated 3,000 times. Is this then really 3,000 variants or one single variant duplicated 3,000 times? While in actuality it is really a singular variant duplicated 3,000 times it is recorded as 3,000 variants. Thus when this methodology is taken into consideration the number of actual singular variants from which the others are copied and counted is very few.
Finally, “How did the variants occur?” There are two ways for variants to occur in the text. First, by unintentional changes of various kinds. For example there were errors of the eye that resulted in the wrong divisions of words that actually resulted in the formation of entirely different words. Early manuscripts were written in all upper case letters, with no spaces between words, no verse numeration, and no punctuation. Thus a phrase such as “HEISNOWHERE” could be either “He is now here” or “He is nowhere.” Also at times there was the omission of a letter, words, or an entire line of the text. This is probably due to the reader copying word for word and accidentally skipping a line while copying. While the manuscripts were in Greek, later scribes might be assigned to copy the manuscripts who could not read Greek and thus would not recognize the missing phrase. Another form is the repetition of letters, words, and even entire lines of a text. Perhaps the scribe was copying a text when he had to leave for a moment to answer a knock at the door and upon returning he accidentally repeated a line, or his eye reread the same line twice when copying.
Another common variant is the transposition or reversal of two letters or words. There are other confusions regarding misspellings, abbreviations, insertion of scribal notes, etc. There are errors of the ear that occurred when manuscripts were copied by dictation. In these cases a singular person would read a text while several scribes made copies and thus the scribe inserted a word that sounded like the word is spoken (wood / would, see /sea, eight / ate, weather / whether etc.)
Another error was that of memory, which were not very common but may have occurred as a scribe forgot the precise word of a passage and thus substituted a synonym or similar sounding word. Some were errors of judgment may have occurred as scribes would work in poor conditions or for extra long hours. Or an errors of writing could occur if a scribe wrote indistinctly (poor hand writing) which would then set in motion future errors from those who copied his text.
Second, is by intentional changes for various reasons. For example, the following describes some of the main reasons that would account for the intentional modification of the copies. There may be grammatical and linguistic style differences between the various copyists, and over the course of time. A scribe may modify the text at some point, seeking to bring it into conformity with his style of time period. In addition, liturgical changes were common. For example, a given lectionary may incorporate a prologue that summarized the preceding reading. Then those changes might find there way into a future copy. At times there are harmonization changes. Scribes copying a particular gospel any recall the same story in another gospel account by memory and say to himself, “Oh, I remember this story...” and then copy the story as it is written in another gospel thus resulting in harmonization. This may also have been done intentionally in order to fix what was a perceived error or conflict between gospel accounts. Another intentional change would be a historical or factual change in which two or more variants are combined into a single variant. Thus two families of texts with two separate variants are then duplicated in a copy that is made from both texts. Thus the mother and father texts create a whole new line of manuscripts. Conflation changes at times occurred in which two or more variants are combined into one single variant. Finally, at times there are doctrinal changes are generally in the direction of orthodoxy, with the scribe seeking to make the text more expressive of truth in order to combat the heretical teachings prevalent in his time such as the “Comma Johaneum” reference to the Trinity in 1 John 5:7 or the reference to walking in the Spirit in Romans 8:1 etc.
How significant are these variants? That is a serious question that must not be ignored by those who hold the Bible in high regard. Although there are about 200,000 known variants, they occur in only 10,000 places. So obviously the next question is, “How significant are those 10,000 places?” The question may be answered by the following textual critics.
Westcott & Hort estimate that only about 1/8 of the variants had any weight (spelling or style) and only about 1/16 rise above the level of triviality thus they concluded our New Testament text is about 98.33% pure. Philip Schaff surmised that only about 400 variants affected the sense of any text, and of those only 50 were of any significance, with none of them affecting any article of faith. A.T. Robertson suggested that only about 1/1000 of the New Testament was affected in any way thus it is 99.9% free of any concern.
While we readily admit to the problem of the variants in the New Testament text (copies) at the same time we readily defend the integrity and purity of the text, recognizing that it is extremely well intact for such an ancient document. In addition, with further textual criticism studies being undertaken, we are very confident that we will increasingly approximate the actual text of the original autographs, which we shall discuss further in Chapter #11 - “Introduction to Modern Criticism.”
The Development of The Manuscript Families
Although this is a recent means to distinguish between the ancient documents (18th century), it does reveal the distinctions and similarities between the early manuscript “types.” There are three that we must consider.
The Western Family consists of the New Testament documents that contain that form of text found in the writings of the Western Church Fathers (e.g. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, etc.). Another is the Alexandrian Family consists of the those New Testament documents which contain that form of text found in the writings of those who lived at Alexandria (Origen, many Papyri; Westcott and Hort felt that “Papyri B” - which they called the “Neutral Text” - was remarkably pure and uncontaminated by the errors of either the Western or Alexandrian family of manuscripts.). Finally, the Traditional Family (Byzantine) includes all those New Testament documents that contain the Byzantine Text. The vast majority of manuscripts belong to this family, and the quotations of Chrysostom and the other church fathers of Antioch seem to correspond to this text.
It is from these manuscript families that we must trace the transmission of the New Testament text. For all the versions, revisions and translations may be traced back to a particular manuscript family. Thus the question becomes, “Is one of the families superior to the others, or do they all essentially reflect the New Testament text in spite of their unique variants?”
The Period Of Standardization of The Text (325 -1500 AD)
This is a time period in which we witness the church faithfully copying the New Testament text from existing manuscript families. There are two predominant results that must be identified. The first is the production of the Hebrew Masoretic text, which remains to this day the authoritative text of the Old Testament. The second is the standardization of the Greek “Byzantine” text, which, for the most part, became the accepted textual form of the New Testament.
“Once the standardized text was developed, there was little need for classification and critical evaluation of the earlier manuscripts of the text. As a result, the text remained relatively unchanged throughout the entire period, for the standardization had been the result of a comparison and mixing of these earlier manuscripts.”
The Period Of Crystallization Of The Text (1500-1648 AD)
This period primarily characterized by the further development of the “Byzantine” manuscript family, the “Textus Receptus,” and the English Bible. We will begin by examining the development of the English Bible, for it is along these lines that we will see most clearly the Greek textual preferences.
One of the most significant developments in this period is that of the English Bible and the “Textus Receptus.” The following is probably the best way to trace exactly how the English Bible came into existence, and how it relates to the standardized text that had been accepted for the previous millennium. [80]
John Wycliffe provided the first translation of the Bible into English, but his work was based upon the Latin Vulgate, for did not know either the Greek or Hebrew languages (1382). Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, a Dutch scholar and humanist, published his Greek New Testament text which was based primarily upon the Latin Vulgate and a few “Byzantine” manuscripts. This became the basis for the “Textus Receptus” (1516). William Tyndale is considered to be the true father of the English Bible. He had a working knowledge of both Hebrew and Greek, and translated the Bible into English from ancient Greek manuscripts (some of which had been used by Erasmus - 1525) These were then followed by Coverdale’s translation which was based upon the Latin Vulgate, Pagnini’s Latin Version, Luther’s German Bible, and two editions of William Tyndale’s English Bible (1535). This was followed by the “Matthew’s Bible” which combined the Tyndale and Coverdale Old Testaments with the 1535 revision of Tyndale’s New Testament to make another version (1537). This was followed by the “Tavernier’s Bible” which was an attempt to improve on the Greek translation of William Tyndale (1539). This was followed by another revision of the “Matthew’s Bible” which became known as the “Great Bible.” This work of revision was directed by Coverdale, and was authorized by the government and the church (1539). This was followed by what was to become the most popular Bible of the century, the “Geneva Bible.” It was called such because it was published in Geneva due to the wide spread Christian persecution that was taking place in England. The basic text for this Bible was not the previous “Great Bible,” but rather the old Tyndale translation. This was also the first English Bible that was written in the chapter and verse style (1560). This was followed by the “Bishop’s Bible” which was simply a revision of the “Great Bible.” It rose in popularity due to the Anglican rejection of the Calvinistic notes contained in the “Geneva Bible” which was used extensively by the Reformers, Puritans, and American Pilgrims and their accreditation of this new revision (1568). This was followed by the “King James Version” which was primarily based upon the 1516 and 1522 editions of Erasmus’ Greek text. It is also interesting to note that this translation was never really “authorized” - this is simply an assumption that is taken from the title page which read, “appointed to be read in churches”, meaning it was replacing the “Bishop’s Bible” for public use. Also, the “King James Version” is not really a “version,” but rather a translation. It is actually the fifth revision of Tyndale’s version, and the first revision of the 1602 edition of the “Bishop’s Bible”. Thus much of the translation of the William Tyndale Bible is reflected in the King James Bible (1611).
The Period Of Criticism And Revisions Regarding The Text (1648 - Present)
Although the textual criticism (lower criticism) has always played an important part in our understanding of the New Testament text, it assumed a dominant role during this time period. Lower criticism is not to be confused with “higher criticism” which is associated with the anti-supernatural presuppositions of German Liberalism. Rather, lower criticism seeks to discover the best manuscripts and texts and considers such things as the dates, authorship, materials used, style of writing etc in order to determine the original reading. We now want to briefly examine the impact of these textual studies.
Let’s begin by looking at the modern English Bibles and their textual origins. From the Textus Receptus (TR) Majority Text (MT) was produced the KJV and NKJV. From the Nestle - Aland (NU) was produced the ERV, ASV, RSV NEB, NASB, NIV.
As you can see the basic difference producing these results is one of manuscript (textual) preference. The “Textus Receptus” uses primarily the “Byzantine” family of manuscripts whereas the Nestle - Aland uses the Alexandrian family.
The questions that must be asked are, “What led to the development of this alternate textual position?” And, “is this text a valid one for modern Bible translations?” The following is probably the best way to trace exactly how the text resulting from “lower criticism” came into existence:
Two Cambridge scholars, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort spent over 30 years examining all the Greek manuscripts available at that time (1850-1881). In 1881 they published a completely revised edition of the New Testament text in two volumes; the first contained the text itself, and the second contained various notes on selected textual readings. The “genealogical theory” divided the textual materials into four types: the Syrian, Western, Neutral, and Alexandrian. The Syrian text-type included the Syrian, Antiochian, and Byzantine texts. This approach also included the extensive use of the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, two of the oldest and most complete manuscripts dating back to the fourth century. [81]
Having examined how this text of the New Testament was developed, we should ask the question, “What was the response to the work by Westcott and Hort?” Obviously there were mixed reviews, with the work being hailed by many as pure genius, and by others as pure heresy. The following represents the two school schools of thought:
Those Rejecting the New Critical Text argue that the traditional text (“Textus Receptus”) served the church for 1500 years and must be correct because of its duration. The traditional text had hundreds of manuscripts in its favor, whereas the critical text had only a few early ones and, it is argued, that the traditional text is actually superior because it is older.
Those Favoring the New Critical Text argue that the critical text was developed by the most careful and scholarly methodology, with no piece of evidence ever going unnoticed, and no legitimate authority not being brought into perspective. Discoveries made since the time of Westcott and Hort have tended to confirm their type of text while opposing the “Textus Receptus” (e.g. the papyrus codex discoveries seem to confirm their conclusions). Thus it would appear that the Alexandrian text is the better family because of age and absence of harmonization of readings.
In conclusion, there are two recognized manuscript / textual lines of the New Testament text. There are, of course, who prefer one above the other, even to the point of contending that only one is really authentic. These often base their arguments more upon tradition, emotional persuasion, and personal opinion and are usually associated with the “Textus Receptus” line and the King James Version. They even go to the point of attacking the theology and lifestyle of Westcott and Hort in an attempt to discredit them, and in doing so, to discredit their work. But they fail to realize that these are not necessarily pertinent issues when dealing with the Greek language and Greek manuscripts. [82] On the other hand, those who are convinced of the validity of the critical text are now making a sound appeal to “realism” and “sensibility” and all the more so in light of the mounting evidences in favor of their textual preference. So, in the final analysis, who is right? Perhaps the following suggestions might shed some light on the issue.
In light of the providence of God we have the “Textus Receptus” which has served the church so well for many hundreds of years. With the introduction of the Westcott-Hort critical text we have a great scholarly contribution to the entire field of textual study, and a text that is developed from an entirely different set of manuscripts. Thus, “In the final analysis, there is no substantial difference between their texts. Their differences aware mainly technical and methodological, not doctrinal, for the textual variants are doctrinally inconsequential.” [83] Therefore we should rest on the solid foundation of Scripture for our New Testament text has substantial support from two different families of texts both ancient and numerous. Since the textual variances of the New Testament amount to only 1/1000 of the text which affect no doctrine we ought not to major on the minors we ought to focus on the Bible as the authoritative Word of God rather than fight amongst ourselves on minutia of textual differences.
|
| | |
| End Notes |
| |
[78] Norman L. Geisler, "A General Introduction to the Bible" pg 221.
[79] Edward F. Hills The King James Version Defended pg. 2.
[80] Neil R. Lightfoot "How we Got Our Bible" pg 10.
[81] Norman L. Geisler,A General Introduction to the Bible pg 456. Neil R. Lightfoot How we Got Our Bible pg 63.
[82] See James White’s book "The King James Only Controversy" Bethany House Pub., 1995. [83] Norman L. Geisler, "A General Introduction to the Bible" pg 464. |
| |
|
