“New Testament Text and Translation Commentary” by Philip Comfort

Author: Philip W. Comfort
Format: Hardcover
Page Count: 899
Publisher: Tyndale House
Publication Date: 2008
ISBN: 9781414310343
Rating: 5 of 5 stars

I have always been intrigued by textual criticism and the study of how we got our Bible. The Bibles we have today are the descendants of hand written manuscripts, written on papyri, vellum or paper, and in either large (uncial) or small (miniscule) letters. Those manuscripts were written originally in Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic, and later translated into Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and other languages. Today we have English Bibles finely produced from the magic of printing presses and publishing houses. But how can we know that these Bibles accurately represent what was originally written? This is where textual criticism comes in — a highly disputed field, especially in today’s skeptical age. Textual scholars referred to as critics, take the time to compare all the hand written manuscripts that have been preserved down to our day. Using various methods of comparing, contrasting and evaluating the readings of numerous manuscripts (over 5700 for the NT!), they help guide today’s church in deciding which textual variants are the likely original readings.

Philip Comfort is one of these scholars, and he has provided a fabulous resource for Bible scholars, pastors, and others to study the textual data on all the 3,000 or so places in the New Testament where we find textual variants that may affect the Bible translations we have in our hands. Comfort focuses primarily on the variants which result in differences between the various English Bible versions in use today (KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, HCSB, NLT, TNIV, NRSV, etc.). He also highlights some of the intriguing variants and places where the Western family of manuscripts often expands the text. What makes Comfort’s work so especially valuable is that his discussion is all in English! He discusses the Greek and other languages, but is mindful of the non-technical, English speaking reader. This makes New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (NTTTC) very accessible, opening up the intricacies of textual critical studies to the average Bible student.

While Comfort may not include all the textual data accessible to scholars in the UBS4 or NA27 Greek texts and other scholarly resources, he does format his work and provide relevant information in a much more user-friendly format. In places where there are two or more variants that have affected the English Bibles, Comfort will first give each variant reading in Greek and English, then he lists the Greek manuscripts and other supports for each variant, and he also adds which English Bibles follow that variant in their text or margin. Following all of this, he offers a brief discussion of that particular variant, taking us step by step through how a conservative, evangelical scholar will assess this textual evidence to arrive at a conclusion concerning this particular reading.

This detailed analysis of each major variant in the Greek New Testament makes up the bulk of the book and provides an easy to look up reference for practically any passage where one might encounter a variant. Comfort also provides a brief overview of textual criticism and a very interesting assessment of the major textual witnesses for each section of the New Testament. He displays an extensive understanding of the papyri manuscripts in particular as well as the history of textual criticism and all the relevant data. A few appendices are also included for more specialized discussions.

NTTTC doesn’t stick to strictly textual critical matters. In Mk. 7:3 a discussion of manners and customs of Bible times is required to understand the Greek phrase “wash their hands with a fist” . Exegetical matters are also addressed, such as in the conservative and delicate handling of the variant at 1 Cor. 14:34-35. NTTTC’s format makes difficult and highly technical discussions much easier. When discussing the ending of Mark, he helpfully lays out all 5 variations of the ending providing a few pages of discussion. At Acts 20:28 he discusses two variants together, by first delineating all the various combinations of the two variants, and helpfully summarizing the options and discussing each option in light of exegetical matters as well.

The discussions in NTTTC prove enlightening. One learns the importance of understanding the patterns of particular scribes when discussing variants such as Luke 24:3 where Comfort explains why Westcott and Hort were wrong. The major passages like the ending of Mark and John 7:53-8:11 are covered in depth. Comfort is honest about some variants being driven by theological considerations, such as in Heb. 2:9. Interestingly, the theological bias in textual variants was almost always rejected by the church in days of old as well as today.

One excerpt of this work will serve to illustrate its value well. Regarding Jude 4, Comfort states:

The reading in TR, poorly attested, is probably an attempt to avoid calling Jesus δεσποτην (“Master” ), when this title is usually ascribed to God (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; Rev. 6:10). Hence, θεον (“God” ) was appended to δεσποτην. However, 2 Pet. 2:1, a parallel passage, identifies the redeemer, Jesus Christ, as the δεσποτην. So here also the WH NU reading, which is extremely well documented, shows that Jude considered Jesus to be the absolute sovereign.

As one well attuned to the issues relating to King James Onlyism, I found this volume especially helpful. 26 times I found a KJV reading to be supported by no Greek manuscripts. Western additions such as “full of the Holy Spirit” at Acts 15:32 and “Jesus” at Acts 17:31 reveal that “omissions” are in the eye of the beholder. Does the TR omit these important phrases or the Western texts add them? It was through my KJV Onlyism debate lenses that I discovered a few minor errors in Comfort’s text. He wrongly claims the KJV followed Stephanus’ 1550 TR (along with the WH/ NU modern Greek Text) at Rev. 16:5 when in fact they followed Beza’s conjectural emendation “and shall be” instead of “holy one” . He also seems to state that a variant at Rom. 7:6 was introduced by Elzevirs’ TR and then later adopted by the KJV, however the KJV was translated 22 years prior to the Elzevirs’ work. The reading in question was introduced by Beza in one of his editions used by the KJV translators. Also at Luke 2:38 he lists the Vulgate as the sole support for the KJV reading, but Robinson-Pierpont’s Majority Text edition includes the KJV reading “Lord” .

I would have liked Comfort to address more passages relevant to the KJV Only debate. It would have been great if he had mentioned which variants the printed Greek Majority Text’s of Hodges-Farstad or Robinson-Pierpont adopted as well. But space constraints are totally understandable. I also wish he had somehow indicated if the manuscript listings given for a particular passage are complete or not. If more evidence is available (or not) for a given variant, it would be nice to know. Perhaps using an asterisk when all the known witnesses to a variant were listed would help.

All in all, I can’t recommend Comfort’s work more highly. This is an important volume and I will be referring to it often in years to come.

Disclaimer: this book was provided by the publisher for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to provide a positive review.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from Tyndale House.

Announcing: A New & Improved King James Only Blog

Over the years I’ve toiled alone in trying to create a good KJV Only resource site. There are others out there, and I mainly wanted to publicize them. I also have an interest in the debate and have posted from time to time on the topic here. I’ve had my fair share of blog wars and debates over this too. Other obligations and interests have left that site only partially complete, however.

I’ve finally enlisted a couple likeminded blogging buddies, Phil and Damien, who are going to help me maintain an active KJV Only Blog where we’ll try to compile a bunch of blog posts relating to this debate. Discussions will be saved in the comments and it may prove to be a helpful resource for many.

Our first substantive post went up today, so I encourage you to check out King James Only?, and click on the subscribe links. We’ll be doing some re-posting over there of material the 3 of us have posted at our own blogs, and we will create new content as well. We want it to be a clearing house of good resources on the debate from an informed, rational perspective. One that doesn’t paint all King James Onlyists as total wack0s since all of us posters are former KJV Onlyists ourselves. We feel the debate is important, and that providing patient helpful answers is a good thing for those seeking their way in the debate at large.

Let me know what you think, and if anyone would like to join our effort, contact me.

Westcott & Hort: Victims of KJV-Only Smear Campaign

Okay, this isn’t exactly a news flash. But Westcott and Hort, the respected scholars who published the first major critical edition of the Greek Text of the modern era (in 1881), are the innocent victims of a mind blowing smear campaign. King James Version Onlyism has charged them with all sorts of unbelievable heresies, chief of which is the belief that their text is better than the Textus Receptus, which underlies the KJV.

Westcott and Hort both stood against liberalism in their day, to one degree or another; Westcott particularly authoring excellent, conservative commentaries. Never mind these facts, KJV Onlyists scoured through post-humously published journals and letters, and scanned through the dozens of other published books by these scholars and came up with some gems. When presented in just the right manner, to just the right kind of audience, Westcott and Hort can be successfully transformed into monsters. With ellipses (…), italics and the fundamentalist favorite: the ALL CAPS, Westcott and Hort’s quotes, already removed from their contexts are doctored into such a fashion that they are ready to be included in prominent KJV defending books.

It’s sad that the above is quite true. It’s sad that this is the extreme to which people go to somehow legitimize their view. Of course, Gail Riplinger is proof that you don’t have to stop with this extreme measure. I won’t continue, because my friend Damien Garofalo just posted the next post in a series he’s doing analyzing D.A. Waite’s KJV Only seminar slides. Dr. D.A. Waite is one of the foremost defenders of the King James Bible and in his books as well as his seminars, he makes use of the guilt by association argument concerning Westcott and Hort. I encourage you to check out Damien’s post which exposes some of the fundamentalist smear for what it really is.

Waite may be using these doctored quotes second hand. But that shouldn’t excuse him since this would then reveal shoddy scholarship rather than a fondness for libel. And as a former KJV Onlyist, I can attest that many of us are sadly misinformed about these godly scholars, Westcott and Hort. Feed a person poor arguments and faulty facts long enough, and they’ll believe anything. So forgive me, Westcott and Hort. Thanks for your work in moving us closer to the fine Greek text we have today.

A final note: check out the Westcott and Hort Resource Centre for more information. Or see some of these articles by James May at kjvonly.org.

A Christ-Centered Perspective of King James Onlyism

Damien over at Return to Biblicism, just completed a three part series on “Christ and the Scriptures“. He gives me hope: there are other people out there who write longer blog posts than I do!!!

His series focuses on why we believe the Bible, and he argues convincingly that we should believe in Christ first, and the Bible because of what Christ believes about the Bible. Today’s post is where the rubber hits the road for the King James Only debate. He illustrates how Jesus uses the LXX, and what that should mean for our views of Bible versions today.

I’m going to steal a chart he used in today’s post, but I want you all to go over and read his post too, now. In Luke 4, Jesus is specifically said to pick up a scroll in the synagogue and read what was written there. See how what was written compares to the Hebrew Old Testament (as translated by the KJV) and the LXX Greek Old Testament. Click chart below to expand.

click to expand

This argument, coupled with a comparison of how Scripture quotes Scripture (OT quoting the OT, NT quoting the OT or the NT), and then seeing how Scripture records single events in multiple passages (in the OT and NT), is the knock-out blow to the KJV Only argument. If we treat Scripture and think about it in a way similar to Jesus and the apostles/prophets, how can we go wrong?

For more on this line of reasoning, read Damien’s post, or check out this article by Brian Tegart entitled “Jesus is not KJV-only“.