Tag: textual criticism

My Interview with Dr. Maurice Robinson

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

I wanted to spread the word about an interview I conducted of Dr. Maurice Robinson for my group KJV Only Debate blog. Dr. Robinson is the co-editor of The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform (Southborough, MA: Chilton Book Publishing, 1991, 2005), and one of the few proponents of the Majority Text position. This view holds to the primacy of the Byzantine text-type but does not hold up the Textus Receptus (or KJV) as anything close to error-free. Here are the links to the interview.

KJV Only Debate Blog Interviews Dr. Maurice Robinson, pt. 1

KJV Only Debate Blog Interviews Dr. Maurice Robinson, pt. 2

KJV Only Debate Blog Interviews Dr. Maurice Robinson, pt. 3

A.T. Robertson on Textual Variants

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Today it is common to speak of four hundred thousand variants to the Greek New Testament. Agnostic scholars like Bart Ehrman, like to stoke the fires of public mistrust in the Bible by pointing out the “textual corruption” of the New Testament. Closer to home, “King James Version-Only” advocates like to emphasize the differences between the Greek text behind the King James and that behind modern versions.

What are we to say to this? How shall we respond to the valid claim that there are thousands of textual variants? Indeed there are hundreds of thousands!

A.T. Robertson, a Greek scholar extraordinaire and author of a classic 1450 page advanced Greek grammar, can help us in this regard. In the introduction to his book An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1925), he clearly explains what textual criticism is and why it is needed. He then goes on to discuss the condition of the New Testament with regard to its textual purity. I offer an extended quote below, that I trust will prove useful. He is writing in 1925, so many more variants are known today, but the general principles he explains and the viability of all such variants hold true. You can read his entire book online at archive.org.

…the current New Testament text must be adjudged, in comparison with a well printed modern book, extremely corrupt.

On the other hand, if we compare the present state of the New Testament text with that of any other ancient writing, we must render the opposite verdict, and declare it to be marvelously correct. Such has been the care with which the New Testament has been copied,–a care which has doubtless grown out of a true reverence for its holy words,– such has been the providence of God in preserving for His Church in each and every age a competently exact text of the Scriptures, that not only is the New Testament unrivaled among ancient writings in the purity of its text as actually transmitted and kept in use, but also in the abundance of testimony which has come down to us for castigating its comparatively infrequent blemishes. The divergence of its current text from the autograph may shock a modern printer of modern books; its wonderful approximation to its autograph is the undisguised envy of every modern reader of ancient books.

When we attempt to state the amount of corruption which the New Testament has suffered in its transmission through two millenniums, absolutely instead of thus relatively, we reach scarcely more intelligible results. Roughly speaking, there have been counted in it some hundred and eighty or two hundred thousand “various readings”–that is, actual variations of reading in existing documents. These are, of course, the result of corruption, and hence the measure of corruption. But we must guard against being misled by this very misleading statement. It is not meant that there are nearly two hundred thousand places in the New Testament where various readings occur; but only that there are nearly two hundred thousand various readings all told; and in many cases the documents so differ among themselves that many are counted on a single word. For each document is compared in turn with the one standard, and the number of its divergences ascertained; then these sums are themselves added together, and the result given as the number of actually observed variations. It is obvious that each place where a variation occurs is counted as many times over, not only as distinct variations occur upon it, but also as the same variation occurs in different manuscripts. This sum includes, moreover, all variations of all kinds and in all sources, even those that are singular to a single document of infinitesimal weight as a witness, and even those that affect such very minor matters as the spelling of a word. Dr. Ezra Abbot was accustomed to say that about nineteen-twentieths of them have so little support that, although they are various readings, no one would think of them as rival readings; and nineteen-twentieths of the remainder are of so little importance that their adoption or rejection would cause no appreciable difference in the sense of the passages where they occur. Dr. Hort’s way of stating it is that upon about one word in every eight various readings exist supported by sufficient evidence to bid us pause and look at it; that about one word in sixty has various readings upon it supported by such evidence as to render our decision nice and difficult; but that so many of these variations are trivial that only about one word in every thousand has upon it substantial variation supported by such evidence as to call out the efforts of the critic in deciding between the readings.

The great mass of the New Testament, in other words, has been transmitted to us with no, or next to no, variation; and even in the most corrupt form in which it has ever appeared, to use the oft-quoted words of Richard Bentley, “the real text of the sacred writers is competently exact; … nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost… choose as awkwardly as you will, choose the worst by design, cut of the whole lump of readings.” If, then, we undertake the textual criticism of the New Testament under a sense of duty, we may bring it to a conclusion under the inspiration of hope. The autographic text of the New Testament is distinctly within the reach of criticism in so immensely the greater part of the volume, that we cannot despair of restoring to ourselves and the Church of God, His Book, word for word, as He gave it by inspiration to men. [pg. 12-15, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament] (emphasis mine)

— cross posted from my team KJV Only blog

New on the KJV Only Debate Blog…

~ Bob Hayton

You may want to check out my team KJV Only? blog. I’m continuing a series I started on this blog, called Testing the Textus Receptus. Today’s post centers on Rev. 16:5 one of the “certainly erroneous” passages in the KJV, to use E.F. Hills’ (a KJV defender himself) term.

Come on over and check out the post. Then consider linking to our blog, or subscribing if you’d like.

“New Testament Text and Translation Commentary” by Philip Comfort

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

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.

Testing the Textus Receptus: Luke 2:22

~ fundyreformed ~ 19 Comments

In Testing the Textus Receptus posts, I test the claims of Textus Receptus (TR) Onlyism. This is a moderate form of King James Onlyism focusing on the Greek (& Hebrew) basis for the King James Version.

As I mentioned earlier, Luke 2:22 is one of three passages that James White (author of The King James Only Controversy) recently asked TR Only proponents to “explain why [someone] should use the TR’s [reading]”.

To help explain the context, let me quote Luke 2:22 and 23 here.

And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord” ) — Luke 2:22-23 (ESV)

Jesus is a baby, and Joseph and Mary in this passage are going to Jerusalem to perform all the sacrificial rituals the Law required. The textual variant here concerns “their”. The King James Version reads “her”.

The TR Only Claim

This textual difference is claimed as an error in the modern Critical Text. “Their purification” would either implicate Jesus as possibly requiring purification for sin, or it would disagree with the OT Law which required only a woman to go through ceremonial purification after a child birth, not the man (if Joseph is in view). Again, this reading, according to TR Onlyists, must be an error due to theological reasons. Since two possible options for interpreting the text are clearly errors, and since the KJV offers a different reading, the conclusion is reached that the modern text must have it wrong on this point.

This verse then becomes one of a number of texts claimed to be doctrinal errors in the modern critical text. If we accept the critical text, we are accepting this theological error. We should side, say they, with the Textus Receptus which has been given the approval of God’s people for hundreds of years. The churches received this text with the reading: “her purification”. Case dismissed.

But when we start to test this claim, and dig a little deeper into this textual decision, the picture gets blurry fast.

Testing that Claim: History of the TR

Which reading did the churches receive? Well, the Textus Receptus did not always contain this reading. Early Bible Versions before the KJV, such as William Tyndale’s New Testament (1525) and the Coverdale Bible (1535) read “their purification”. The churches accepted those Bibles, it would seem. Stephen’s (or Stephanus) 1550 text which was accepted in England as the preferred form of the Textus Receptus, also reads “their purification”. Beza’s text (the 1598 edition which was most preferred by the KJV) and the later Elzevir’s text of 1633 both have “her purification”.

So did the churches cry foul, and eventually influence the textual editors to change the reading to suit their tastes? Maybe. It’s also possible that Beza fixed what he thought was a defect in the text, to bring it more in line with the Latin Vulgate.

Before we move on, we should note that nothing in Scripture would make us think that only churches of one nationality and one language should make this grave a decision. When we look at other Reformation era Protestant Bibles, produced for other languages, we again find a split in opinion. The Italian Diodati (1603) supports the “their” reading, according to some textual critical notes I found online (at this site). Luther’s German Bible uses a pronoun that in German can be either “her” or “their” so it doesn’t help us. The Dutch Staten translation of 1637 uses “her”. The Portugues translation of 1681 (by Ferreira de Almeida) says just “days of purification”. We could go on in this search, but the prevailing theory would be all the Bibles produced by Christians before the 1800s should all read the same since they were received text Christians before the modern versions, right? It’d be interesting to see some more research done in this area, I am limited in what I can do here.

Testing that Claim: Manuscript Evidence

Looking more closely at the question, we come to manuscript evidence. Here we get an ever clearer picture of the situation. The Greek manuscripts overwhelmingly support “their”. There are a few manuscripts, such as an early Western manuscript (Codex D) along with a few other manuscripts which read “his”. But only 1 miniscule, a late text (number 076), contains “her”. Now, E.F. Hills, a TR Only advocate trained in text criticism, wrote that there may be a few other miniscules that have this reading. So the Greek evidence overwhelmingly supports the reading “their”. Keep in mind, this evidence comes from Ceasarean, Alexandrian and Byzantine type manuscripts. The Greek is clear, the reading is “their”.

With the Latin, the majority of the Vulgate readings have a pronoun which means either “his” or “her”. It is not a support for “their”, but not an unequivocal support of “her” either. Their are some Vulgate manuscripts that read “Mary”. We can add in here some of the Old Italian manuscripts as well, also having a neutral support for either “his or her”.

Next their are two possible supports from the Church Fathers for “her”. But these are dubious, and not clear.

Moving on to other languages we have no more support for “her” at all. We do have Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Georgian and Armenian support for “their”.

If you want to test my account of the evidence, you can read the NET Bible footnote regarding this, here. See the explanation of the textual problem in this article at Bible.org. Or see the listing of key texts supporting the various options of the readings, here at zhubert.com, or from this excellent online Greek New Testament site. You can also see that “their” (αυτων) is the 1550 Stephanus TR reading, and “her” (αυτης) is the 1894 Scrivener TR reading, at Biblegateway.com.

Testing that Claim: Exegetical Discussion

We won’t go into great depth on this point, but we should provide some other options for interpreting the text that the TR Only position does not consider. The presence and use of “their” as a valid reading, was at one point part of the TR tradition. To assume that reading requires an interpretation that either Jesus needed purification for his sin, or that Luke did not understand the OT law well enough, is to impugn the TR tradition itself. Not to mention the multitude of Byzantine manuscripts that have “their” as well.

Being honest in our exegesis of the passage, we see Luke is emphasizing that everything was being done according to the Law as it should be. Perhaps there was some need for Joseph to be purified too, from his involvement with the birth, or other reasons. Also the word “purification” could be a broad term of that era, which could have generally applied to Joseph and Mary consecrating Jesus as their firstborn and paying his redemption price according to he Law. The main point of the passage remains clear and we do not have to assume this is a doctrinal error.

The Verdict

First off, we should be very wary of TR Only claims that this verse represents a doctrinal error, or evidence of textual corruption. Many Christians in the TR era preferred Stephanus’ text and used earlier ones, read Tyndale’s Bible, and were not thereby accepting a doctrinal error in this point. Furthermore virtually every Byzantine manuscript to which TR Only folk point for support for their precious TR, has it wrong (according to the TR Only position) at Luke 2:22 as well. Were the users of such texts intentionally corrupting the text at that point? Or complicit in doctrinal error? Did students of the word conclude from that passage that Jesus was a sinner or the Bible’s message in Luke was errant? No. Throwing this charge out on evangelicals today who choose to use a text that reads “their” instead of “her” at this place, is just as wrong.

Secondly, it should be apparent that their is no clear mechanism here for TR Onlyists to decide whether the reading should be “her” or “their”. The majority of Greek manuscripts support “their”. Stephanus’ text, which is one of the two most widely accepted TR editions of their day, had “their”. Elzevir’s following Beza’s, had “her”. Which is right? This also opens up the questions surrounding the Latin versus Greek debate. The Latin Vulgate is a mix of Western and Alexandrian readings mostly. Do we assume Beza leaned on the Vulgate to get this reading? Codex D, named after Beza (it is called Bezae), reads “his”. It is Western and the Vulgate is Western in the Gospels. So is the Vulgate thinking “her” or “his”? And if the Vulgate meant “her” by its use of the neutral pronoun, are we okay with a reading being preserved down through time in a Latin manuscript tradition, while many other readings are supported instead by the Greek tradition?

My conclusion is we cannot assume the TR has it right at this point. The vast majority of the evidence points to Beza’s being wrong in changing the TR to read “her” instead of “their”.