Can we know for sure the original text in textual variants?

[FerventDisciple]

Now when I say this I'm talking about meaningful textual variants and mainly those that pertain to the differences between NA28 and the Majority Text. So where those 2 texts differ can we know for sure or at least 90% what the original said? With me for some variants I find the Majority Text arguments persuasive and yet in other areas I find the arguments from NA28 advocates persuasive also. Then beyond that in other places I'm not sure which reading to accept.

 

[thankfulttt]

Now when I say this I'm talking about meaningful textual variants and mainly those that pertain to the differences between NA28 and the Majority Text. So where those 2 texts differ can we know for sure or at least 90% what the original said? With me for some variants I find the Majority Text arguments persuasive and yet in other areas I find the arguments from NA28 advocates persuasive also. Then beyond that in other places I'm not sure which reading to accept.

The NA28 is no better than the manuscripts it was derived from, or from the men who forged it.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Now when I say this I'm talking about meaningful textual variants and mainly those that pertain to the differences between NA28 and the Majority Text. So where those 2 texts differ can we know for sure or at least 90% what the original said? With me for some variants I find the Majority Text arguments persuasive and yet in other areas I find the arguments from NA28 advocates persuasive also. Then beyond that in other places I'm not sure which reading to accept.

The Fourth Revised Edition of the Greek Text of the United Bible Societies is the same as the NA28, and the committee of editors give their preference and rank their preference for each major variant in each verse of the New Testament by preceding it with the letter {A}, {B}, {C}, or {D} with the following explanation,

The letter A indicates that the text is certain.
The letter B indicates that the text is almost certain.
The letter C, however, indicates that the committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text.
The letter D, which occurs rarely, indicates that the committee had great difficulty in arriving at a decision.​

In addition to these two Greek texts, there are critical and exegetical commentaries on the Greek text of each of the individual books of the New Testament. These commentaries discuss all of the major variants, and many of the lesser variants, and the significance of the evidence for each variant. These commentaries are important because, in addition to their many years of higher education, the authors have spent years (sometimes 25 or more) studying the Greek text of the book of the New Testament they are commenting on. These commentaries, especially those written since 1990, often provide very extensive bibliographies that list articles published in peer-reviewed journals on the Bible, including articles on each of the most important variants. Indeed, the most important variants have been very extensively researched and analyzed by scores of scholars who are specialists in their field. There is, however, no shortage of poorly educated men who cannot even read Greek who will tell us that the Majority Text is always right, and that the critical texts are the work of the devil.

 

[thankfulttt]

The Fourth Revised Edition of the Greek Text of the United Bible Societies is the same as the NA28, and the committee of editors give their preference and rank their preference for each major variant in each verse of the New Testament by preceding it with the letter {A}, {B}, {C}, or {D} with the following explanation,

The letter A indicates that the text is certain.
The letter B indicates that the text is almost certain.
The letter C, however, indicates that the committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text.
The letter D, which occurs rarely, indicates that the committee had great difficulty in arriving at a decision.​

Since these fellows voted as to what should be in their text shouldn't we know something about their bias?

Bruce Metzger who was on most of the N/A UBS editions, and is quoted the most often, believed that the first eleven chapters of the Bible were myth and legend. He also edited the Reader's Digest Bible. Large handsome book with many pages. He left out 40% of the Bible, including verses 18-19 of Revelation 22, which says not to takeaway or add to the book. Another man, Cardinal Carlo Martini, one of the highest men in the Vatican, surely had a bias against the Protestant Bible. There was usually a total of 5 men voting on what was to be placed in their bible.

Indeed, the most important variants have been very extensively researched and analyzed by scores of scholars who are specialists in their field. There is, however, no shortage of poorly educated men who cannot even read Greek who will tell us that the Majority Text is always right, and that the critical texts are the work of the devil.

That is why we needed the Vatican.


2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.


MHCENAYTONKC

 

[FerventDisciple]

The Fourth Revised Edition of the Greek Text of the United Bible Societies is the same as the NA28, and the committee of editors give their preference and rank their preference for each major variant in each verse of the New Testament by preceding it with the letter {A}, {B}, {C}, or {D} with the following explanation,

The letter A indicates that the text is certain.
The letter B indicates that the text is almost certain.
The letter C, however, indicates that the committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text.
The letter D, which occurs rarely, indicates that the committee had great difficulty in arriving at a decision.​

In addition to these two Greek texts, there are critical and exegetical commentaries on the Greek text of each of the individual books of the New Testament. These commentaries discuss all of the major variants, and many of the lesser variants, and the significance of the evidence for each variant. These commentaries are important because, in addition to their many years of higher education, the authors have spent years (sometimes 25 or more) studying the Greek text of the book of the New Testament they are commenting on. These commentaries, especially those written since 1990, often provide very extensive bibliographies that list articles published in peer-reviewed journals on the Bible, including articles on each of the most important variants. Indeed, the most important variants have been very extensively researched and analyzed by scores of scholars who are specialists in their field. There is, however, no shortage of poorly educated men who cannot even read Greek who will tell us that the Majority Text is always right, and that the critical texts are the work of the devil.

Is this in the critical apparatus?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Is this in the critical apparatus?

Yes.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Since these fellows voted as to what should be in their text shouldn't we know something about their bias?

Bruce Metzger who was on most of the N/A UBS editions, and is quoted the most often, believed that the first eleven chapters of the Bible were myth and legend. He also edited the Reader's Digest Bible. Large handsome book with many pages. He left out 40% of the Bible, including verses 18-19 of Revelation 22, which says not to takeaway or add to the book. Another man, Cardinal Carlo Martini, one of the highest men in the Vatican, surely had a bias against the Protestant Bible. There was usually a total of 5 men voting on what was to be placed in their bible.

I drive a car made in England and I take my vacations in New Zealand. Do these facts prove that I am biased against the United States and that I am not a good American citizen?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I do not have time to research and explore every variation of what purports to be 'original text'. However, I do read the Bible regularly - daily in the normal course of things. The Bibles I read (primarily) are the Revised New English Bible, the New English Translation and the Amplified Bible. I read other Bibles occasionally as well. (I even have a couple copies of the KJV on my library shelf and read them from time to time - but don't let that get out.)

My main criteria is the actual message and totality of the meaning, rather than a strict view of the word transliterations.

The Hebrew word for 'word' is (transliterated) 'devar' or 'debar' (depending on how hard one's tongue hits that middle character). In Greek, the word for 'word' is 'logos'. The meanings of both units of language (words) are quite similar.

Both can mean a 'unit of language' or 'ink stain on paper'. Contrary to some, this is not the only meaning of either 'devar' or 'logos'.

Both can mean the 'message' of a statement, announcement or speech; the essential meaning of a thought transmission. We use this in the phrases 'What's the word' or 'Pass the word'. Actually, when one mentions 'A word of prayer', this is what is meant - unless the prayer is simply "Help!".

The third meaning is that of 'essential nature' - which is the sense of Jesus Christ being 'Word of God'. Jesus is certainly more than an ink stain on paper or merely a 'message'.

When I examine an English translation of the Bible - or the English version of a purported authentic original text document, my main concern is definition two; the meaning.

Is the message the same? Is God glorified? Is Jesus Christ exalted?

For instance, in Genesis 30:8, the KJV translation reads: And Rachel said, With great wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister, and I have prevailed: and she called his name Naphtali.

The New English Translation reads the same passage thusly: Then Rachel said, “I have fought a desperate struggle with my sister, but I have won.” So she named him Naphtali.

By the way, Strong's Lexicon translates the word in bold as 'wrestling' (H5319) transliterated as 'naphtuwl' which is the basis for "Naphtali". However, the underlined word is identified as (H6617) 'twist' or 'wrestle'.

So. Looking at the entire paragraph, the main gist of the narrative is that Rachel had been evolved in a contest, struggle, 'wrestling match' with her sister Leah about providing children to their husband, Jacob (Israel). How many readers believe Rachel and Leah were flopping around in the dirt, tearing each other's clothes and getting sweaty?

By the way, the English language translation of the Syriac (Peshitta) Bible renders the word in discussion as 'argued'.

However, the meaning is the same, no matter the English word (wrestled, struggled, argued) used. There was a dispute or contest (verb, not noun) and it was resolved finally with Rachel considering herself the victor.

To recap: I look for accuracy of the intent of the meaning, not specific use of words. When Paul says in 2nd Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God... the word (unit of language) 'scripture' in Greek is the word (unit of language) transliterated as 'graphe'. The meaning very much echoes 'logos'. It means "the Scripture, used to denote either the book itself, or its contents."

So it is the message, the meaning that is 'God-Breathed' and not specific units of language.

Arguing whether this or that 'text' should be allowed or considered due to the absence of a comma, or the use of 'this word' rather than 'that word' falls under the heading of "... foolish controversies, genealogies, quarrels, and fights ..." of which we are warned by Paul in Titus 3.

Just so I am not misunderstood - although I will be mis-quoted - the change in wording in John 1:1 in the New World Translation does in fact change the meaning of the text. There is a major difference in meaning between In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. and the NWT alteration of In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

Yes, there are places where changing a word does change the meaning. But not always - as noted in the Genesis example. The message is the important aspect.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I drive a car made in England and I take my vacations in New Zealand. Do these facts prove that I am biased against the United States and that I am not a good American citizen?

Those two factors and your screen name do not preclude you from being a good American citizen.

They do identify you as being somewhat pretentious. (We really need an emoticon for 'rimshot'.)

 

[Biblicist]

Now when I say this I'm talking about meaningful textual variants and mainly those that pertain to the differences between NA28 and the Majority Text. So where those 2 texts differ can we know for sure or at least 90% what the original said? With me for some variants I find the Majority Text arguments persuasive and yet in other areas I find the arguments from NA28 advocates persuasive also. Then beyond that in other places I'm not sure which reading to accept.

Prior to the UBS/GNT Greek text and with the important research that is associated with this text, we were forced to rely on the poorly contrived text of Erasmus which was a bit of an embarrassment. The poor chap was much like many scholars of our day in that their publishers print release date and other needs often outweighed the need for good research and the Greek text which Erasmus compiled is a good example of this. No matter how hard he tried he couldn’t even find any Greek text which had the final (six?) verses of Revelations which he was forced to make up on the spot.
As for the state of the contemporary GNT4/NA28 Greek text we can now face the secularists with a high degree of confidence in the Greek text and not only with the text itself by with the incredible amount of scholarly research that surrounds it.

As for any specific verse, then we will have to look at each one in isolation but thankfully we have a lot of superb research that can help us to decide if a given verse or verses is uncertain or if even a particular word is a good choice or not.

 

[thankfulttt]

I drive a car made in England and I take my vacations in New Zealand. Do these facts prove that I am biased against the United States and that I am not a good American citizen?

I wouldn't want someone who believes the Bible is a myth, and doesn't believe in the Deity of Christ deciding whether "God manifest in the flesh" belongs in my bible, by their vote.

 

[hedrick]

Prior to the UBS/GNT Greek text and with the important research that is associated with this text, we were forced to rely on the poorly contrived text of Erasmus which was a bit of an embarrassment. The poor chap was much like many scholars of our day in that their publishers print release date and other needs often outweighed the need for good research and the Greek text which Erasmus compiled is a good example of this. No matter how hard he tried he couldn’t even find any Greek text which had the final (six?) verses of Revelations which he was forced to make up on the spot.
As for the state of the contemporary GNT4/NA28 Greek text we can now face the secularists with a high degree of confidence in the Greek text and not only with the text itself by with the incredible amount of scholarly research that surrounds it.

As for any specific verse, then we will have to look at each one in isolation but thankfully we have a lot of superb research that can help us to decide if a given verse or verses is uncertain or if even a particular word is a good choice or not.

While I agree with most of this, the last paragraph probably overstates the degree of certainty we have. I think most of the people involved with the UBS would want to caution against using it as a new Received Text.

 

[thankfulttt]

Prior to the UBS/GNT Greek text and with the important research that is associated with this text, we were forced to rely on the poorly contrived text of Erasmus which was a bit of an embarrassment. The poor chap was much like many scholars of our day in that their publishers print release date and other needs often outweighed the need for good research and the Greek text which Erasmus compiled is a good example of this. No matter how hard he tried he couldn’t even find any Greek text which had the final (six?) verses of Revelations which he was forced to make up on the spot.
As for the state of the contemporary GNT4/NA28 Greek text we can now face the secularists with a high degree of confidence in the Greek text and not only with the text itself by with the incredible amount of scholarly research that surrounds it.

As for any specific verse, then we will have to look at each one in isolation but thankfully we have a lot of superb research that can help us to decide if a given verse or verses is uncertain or if even a particular word is a good choice or not.

Greetings,

Do you consider that any one of the original manuscripts may have been written in a language other than Greek?

Best regards, Terry

 

[Biblicist]

While I agree with most of this, the last paragraph probably overstates the degree of certainty we have. I think most of the people involved with the UBS would want to caution against using it as a new Received Text.

I had hoped to convey that even though there are still verses and certainly words that are still open to question, we can at least go back to the numerous articles that have been written on them and even the USB/GNT apparatus to find out what the current level or research has to say.

Undoubtedly there will be words and even verses that may always contain a level of uncertainty right up until the Lord returns. The UBS/NA Greek text will never be a fully completed work as this would be an impossible outcome to not only achieve but to also define.

 

[Biblicist]

Greetings,

Do you consider that any one of the original manuscripts may have been written in a language other than Greek?

Best regards, Terry

What great timing! Up until maybe two weeks ago I used to wonder if Romans and First Corinthians were maybe written in Latin. As Corinth was a Latin colony and it's been said that Corinth was probably more Latin than Rome, to me, it did make some sense to think that this could have been a possibility.

But as we have no evidence for this and that Paul would have expected his letters to be copied and passed on to primarily Greek speaking cities then it would have made more sense to write it in Greek.

Another complication arises is that if these two autographs were originally penned in Latin, then it would mean that every other Greek copy would be a translation and not a direct copy of the original text.

 

[thankfulttt]

What great timing! Up until maybe two weeks ago I used to wonder if Romans and First Corinthians were maybe written in Latin. As Corinth was a Latin colony and it's been said that Corinth was probably more Latin than Rome, to me, it did make some sense to think that this could have been a possibility.

But as we have no evidence for this and that Paul would have expected his letters to be copied and passed on to primarily Greek speaking cities then it would have made more sense to write it in Greek.

Another complication arises is that if these two autographs were originally penned in Latin, then it would mean that every other Greek copy would be a translation and not a direct copy of the original text.

It is said that several Church Fathers implied that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew,

Paul being a Hebrew of Hebrew's and writing to the Hebrew's, would he get the attention of Hebrews by writing in Greek?

Hasn't the Greek been glorified to a position of a Holy Grail in the last hundred years?

Best regards Terry

 

[Biblicist]

It is said that several Church Fathers implied that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew,

Paul being a Hebrew of Hebrew's and writing to the Hebrew's, would he get the attention of Hebrews by writing in Greek?

Hasn't the Greek been glorified to a position of a Holy Grail in the last hundred years?

Best regards Terry

Okay, I knew that I should have made some reference to the Hebrew text, my mistake.

As Paul was a Roman citizen and the Apostle to the Gentiles, why would he choose to have his letters written in Hebrew when he was speaking to primarily a Greek speaking audience? Even with the Jews who were living in places such as Ephesus, Athens, Antioch or Alexandria their first language would probably have been Greek and maybe some would have spoken in Aramaic, but I would think that even Aramaic would be rare and as for any of them speaking in Hebrew this would probably be even more rare.

Over the past 30 years there has been a lot of scholarly interest with the field of socio-rhetorical studies which has revealed that Paul and/or his scribes composed his letters employing standard Greco-Roman rhetoric which would be hard to fit into Hebrew and Aramaic.

As for some of the early churchmen's views that Matthew may have been written in Hebrew, it seems that 'some' may have been alluding to another book but it does seem that they were simply guessing.

 

[thankfulttt]

Okay, I knew that I should have made some reference to the Hebrew text, my mistake.

As Paul was a Roman citizen and the Apostle to the Gentiles, why would he choose to have his letters written in Hebrew when he was speaking to primarily a Greek speaking audience? Even with the Jews who were living in places such as Ephesus, Athens, Antioch or Alexandria their first language would probably have been Greek and maybe some would have spoken in Aramaic, but I would think that even Aramaic would be rare and as for any of them speaking in Hebrew this would probably be even more rare.

Over the past 30 years there has been a lot of scholarly interest with the field of socio-rhetorical studies which has revealed that Paul and/or his scribes composed his letters employing standard Greco-Roman rhetoric which would be hard to fit into Hebrew and Aramaic.

As for some of the early churchmen's views that Matthew may have been written in Hebrew, it seems that 'some' may have been alluding to another book but it does seem that they were simply guessing.

This one verse alone speaks of the language of the Jews.

Act 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Obviously the Jews spoke Hebrew, therefore doesn't it seem natural that Paul wrote in Hebrew to the Hebrews in the book of Hebrews?

The Romans didn't have a public education system for the Jewish Children to teach them Latin, or Greek.

I would be very surprised if the book of Matthew and and books of John were not written in Hebrew, for they were writing to Jews.

There are Hebrew scholars who say that they have found words in the bible that would only make sense in the Hebrew, and that in the Greek they lose their sense of meaning.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Best regards, Terry

 

[Biblicist]

This one verse alone speaks of the language of the Jews.

Act 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Obviously the Jews spoke Hebrew, therefore doesn't it seem natural that Paul wrote in Hebrew to the Hebrews in the book of Hebrews?

The Romans didn't have a public education system for the Jewish Children to teach them Latin, or Greek.

I would be very surprised if the book of Matthew and and books of John were not written in Hebrew, for they were writing to Jews.

There are Hebrew scholars who say that they have found words in the bible that would only make sense in the Hebrew, and that in the Greek they lose their sense of meaning.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Best regards, Terry

Remember, the setting of Acts 21 & 22 was within Jerusalem where the population spoke Aramaic (not Hebrew); so as Paul was being accused of a crime in the Temple precinct in Jerusalem we would expect to find Paul challenging the Jews in Aramaic. So even though Paul spoke in Aramaic Luke would have recorded this speech in Greek.

There are Hebrew scholars who say that they have found words in the bible that would only make sense in the Hebrew, and that in the Greek they lose their sense of meaning.

To my knowledge, I have not come across any scholars who have suggested that the New Testament writers wrote in Hebrew. When it comes to Paul's use of semitisms they can certainly be found throughout his writings which Ben Witherington has provided a lot of helpful research on with his book Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians. On page 34 he makes an interesting comment:

"Raymond Brown notes that the use of Jewish liturgical language is especially prevalent in Romans (e.g., sacrifice in Rom 3:25; 12:1; Paul's ministry as priestly in Rom 15:16) and also in Hebrews and more tellingly the language about the leaders of the community is the same proegoumenoi in Romans 12:10 and hegoumenoi (leaders who are in charge of the care of souls) in Hebrews 13:7, 17".​

Even though the author of Hebrews frequently quotes the Old Testament, Witherington points out that he quotes about 30 references from the Hebrew OT but a further 30-35 from the Greek Septuagint; this means that the author of Hebrews felt quite comfortable with addressing a Jewish audience with a Greek copy of the Old Testament.

If nothing else the use of the Greek Septuagint and Paul's usage of Jewish semitisms can make for a very interesting study.

 

[FerventDisciple]

Prior to the UBS/GNT Greek text and with the important research that is associated with this text, we were forced to rely on the poorly contrived text of Erasmus which was a bit of an embarrassment. The poor chap was much like many scholars of our day in that their publishers print release date and other needs often outweighed the need for good research and the Greek text which Erasmus compiled is a good example of this. No matter how hard he tried he couldn’t even find any Greek text which had the final (six?) verses of Revelations which he was forced to make up on the spot.
As for the state of the contemporary GNT4/NA28 Greek text we can now face the secularists with a high degree of confidence in the Greek text and not only with the text itself by with the incredible amount of scholarly research that surrounds it.

As for any specific verse, then we will have to look at each one in isolation but thankfully we have a lot of superb research that can help us to decide if a given verse or verses is uncertain or if even a particular word is a good choice or not.

I always thought that Erasmus back translated those last few verses from the Vulgate into his Greek text?

That's what I think I've come to, looking at each variant in isolation and keeping in mind all the possibilities. The important thing is we have the original reading regardless of uncertainties in some places.