Only Negligible Differences?

[JM]

Anyone know if this quote is truthful or acrutate?

James White says the textual differences among printed N.T. texts is 5%, while Maurice Robinson (Majority text) puts it at 15%.

Dr. Kurt Aland and Dr. Barbara Aland calculated that all the variants between all of the New Testament manuscripts calculated to a 37.1% difference. (Dr. Kurt Aland and Dr. Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), p. 29.) That means that over a third of the New Testament has meaningful variants. source

Do our biblical texts differ 5%, 15% or almost 40% of the time? If it's 15% or 40%, how does it not affect doctrine? It would, at the very least, affect our doctrine and understanding of scripture.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[abacabb3]

Anyone know if this quote is truthful or acrutate?


Do our biblical texts differ 5%, 15% or almost 40% of the time? If it's 15% or 40%, how does it not affect doctrine? It would, at the very least, affect our doctrine and understanding of scripture.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

It depends on the term meaningful. Open up your NKJV, NRSV, or NASB and look at the notes. Do you see "meaningful" changes? Outside of the end of Mark (which its absence does not change doctrine as everything in it is found elsewhere in Scripture), the adultress in John 10, and the last 5 verses of Revelation, everything is extremely minor. We are talking about a proper name replaced by the word "he" or something like that.

So, to me the numbers are meaningless. Read a NT with manuscript notes. It is much to do about nothing.

 

[JM]

It depends on the term meaningful. Open up your NKJV, NRSV, or NASB and look at the notes. Do you see "meaningful" changes? Outside of the end of Mark (which its absence does not change doctrine as everything in it is found elsewhere in Scripture), the adultress in John 10, and the last 5 verses of Revelation, everything is extremely minor. We are talking about a proper name replaced by the word "he" or something like that.

So, to me the numbers are meaningless. Read a NT with manuscript notes. It is much to do about nothing.

Does not your question assume that modern versions of the Bible actually mention or make use of all the (37%) variants noted and not, for example, only 5%? It seems textual criticism is arbitrary and capricious. Whatever the publisher or critic decides makes it into the notes. Danile Wallace is a believer and scholar who posted on his blog,

"As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead."

Can we trust this kind of scholarship.

 

[JM]

PS: Just wanted to add; the quote mentions a “5% difference” among printed texts. If there are 15% or 37% variance among the New Testament text they are just not being printed…yet.

 

[JM]

Here's another quote with source:

"a variant is simply the difference in wording found in a single manuscript or a group of manuscripts (either way, it’s still only one variant) that disagrees with a base text." source

What "base source and how do we know it is the foundation for the other mss?

 

[abacabb3]

Does not your question assume that modern versions of the Bible actually mention or make use of all the (37%) variants noted and not, for example, only 5%? It seems textual criticism is arbitrary and capricious. Whatever the publisher or critic decides makes it into the notes. Danile Wallace is a believer and scholar who posted on his blog,

"As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead."

Can we trust this kind of scholarship.

Well, we cannot trust anyone though we can trust God to lead us into all truth, as He promises.

I have the Harper Collins NRSV Study Bible. Very liberal. It covvers all the major manuscript differences and even alternate translations in the study notes according to the preference of the scholar reviewing each book of the Scripture.

Like I said, I read the whole NRSV and found no earth shattering differences in manuscript differences. James White covers this in his debate with Bart Erhman. The differences are negligible to the chargin of atheists. Actually, it builds up the authority of Scripture because it points to no central authority ever destroying varying traditions lending itself to the possibility we are heirs to a corrupt tradition. Muslims have to live with that possibility. We don't.

 

[abacabb3]

PS: Just wanted to add; the quote mentions a “5% difference” among printed texts. If there are 15% or 37% variance among the New Testament text they are just not being printed…yet.

A number like 37%, though I would bet big money that it is a number that could not be substantiated, means if we cover all 600,000 ancient manuscripts of the Bible we will find a difference as little as one letter in one verse in 1 manuscript verses the other 599,999.

It's a very low number if we pick that sort of picky criteria. The number, in reality, should be close to 100% if we are that picky...just from the "typos."

 

[abacabb3]

Here's another quote with source:

"a variant is simply the difference in wording found in a single manuscript or a group of manuscripts (either way, it’s still only one variant) that disagrees with a base text." source

What "base source and how do we know it is the foundation for the other mss?

If we knew what the base source conclusively was, then that would end the debate,

However, we don't.

So, it depends what school you belong to.

Majority Text people think the proof is in the pudding. So, the more of one kind pudding is out there the more likely God inspired it

Textual criticism, in its legitimate form, just goes by dating. So, the earliest manuscripts get priority. Then the Greek lanugage gets priority. Than varying manuscripts based upon age and language are scrutinized.

Further, pertaining to textual criticism, the idea is if all 5 manuscripts from the 2nd and 3rd centuries have the same readings, but a very popular reading is in the majority of manuscripts after the 4th century, the critical method prefers the earlier manuscripts due to their unanimity.

Now, this does not mean that the 4th century manuscripts preserve the correct tradition and the earlier manuscripts of that tradition have been lost. It is possible, just archaeologically less likely.

Hence, study notes! If we preserve all the divergences of early manuscripts, then we can scrutinize and add weight to date verses manuscript presence, and not make firm conclusions until the evidence weighs in.

However, because none of the divergences actually affect doctrine, it is not a problem. If it did affect doctrine, then, we would have major issues then.

 

[JM]

Whose criteria is biblical?

 

[abacabb3]

There is not a biblical criteria, just an intellectually honest and consistent one.

God's word has saved souls with tons of msitranslations and questionable manuscript choices. The SPirit saves and the truth is preserved even when it is not rendered in its perfection, which would be the original autographs.

 

[JM]

A magisterium of unbelieving scholars in place of Rome...very sad.

 

[BryanW92]

A magisterium of unbelieving scholars in place of Rome...very sad.

What are our options? Are we to decide that one version is the only true bible and then discard the rest, and then burn any source material that disagrees with that version?

 

[JM]

Our options? It's a matter or worldview rather than options. The secularist who insists on naturalistic means views the modern text as a fluid document waiting to be discovered by the scholar. Those who confess the Refromed Protestant faith believe the Bible is, "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..." That is what scripture teaches.

jm

 

[abacabb3]

Our options? It's a matter or worldview rather than options. The secularist who insists on naturalistic means views the modern text is fluid, waiting to be discovered by a higher archly. Those who confess the Refromed Protestant faith believe, "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..." That is what scripture teaches.

jm

This appears to be a difference of semantics. Because no one said that the Scriptures here cannot be appealed to. I am not aware of a single Christian, other than cult members, that believes that what we have now translated into English is 100.0% in accuracy and meaning what was written in the original autographs. However, because the differences between manuscripts are so minor and unimportant, we have great confidence in God has indeed kept His word pure and authentic, even when inaccuracies within it persist.

Let me pull a St Augustine and just open a random page in my NRSV study bible right here. Page 1291. Ezek 43:3. The Septuagint starts with "The vision." The Masoretic Hebrew says, "Like the vision." Obviously a redunancy, because the verse says, "The vision I saw was like a vision..." Oops, the Syriac manuscript later in the sentence says "and the vision" while the Hebrew says "visions" as a plural.

I am going to go out on a limb and say the Septuagint, Hebrew, and Syriac are all the word of God because they are conveying the same exact truth, though one or more of them are getting technical details wrong with plurals and stuff. But again, nothing that affects doctrine.

Let's pull a random page in the NT. P. 2323. Rev 11:12. "Then they heard" say some Greek manuscripts read "then I heard..." Ironically, if you read it either way, the point is still clear that John witnesses a vision of a great earthquake in verse 13.

Is one Greek manuscript not really the Scripture?

Revelation also warns of not adding a word or taking away. All I can say is I am happy not to be a scribe, I would be afraid to even translate the book.

 

[abacabb3]

I recommend getting started here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moHInA9fAsI

 

[JM]

Aba, those examples are not random. Consider 1 John 5.7. Dr. White tells us we have no evidence from the early church to support the inclusion. Fine. The Eastern Orthodox claim they do, so do many other not so famous Protestants, so they include 1 John 5.7. Others like Gill believe we have textual reasons for keeping 1 John 5.7. Point is, the modern view disregards the witness of the church. You cannot appeal to scripture if you cannot be sure it is scripture. The old Reformed confessions and catechisms referenced passages that are now considered interpolations. You cannot refer to them with any certainty.

I’ve posted this before, the waters have been thoroughly muddied by crazy KJVonlyists and the use of secular naturalism to determine the Bible canon. I would recommend logging into the Puritan Board if you have any doubt as to the scholarly weight of the TR or BT position.

"The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century." (Hort, The Factor of Geneology, pg 92).

Before 1900 Protestants insisted in the use of the TR:

"In a period when the Textus Receptus held sway and when only occasionally an independent spirit ventured to question its authority....the Greek text incorporated in the editions of Stephanus, Beza and Elzevirs had published succeeded in establishing itself as 'the only true text' of the New Testament, and was slavishly reprinted in hundreds of subsequent editions. It lies at the basis of the King James Version and of all principle Protestant translations in the languages of Europe prior to 1881." The Text of the New Testament Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd edition, Bruce M. Metzger, pg. 95-118.

What Metzger calls "slavish" was the actual outworking of a presupposition held by Protestants, the Reformed in particular.

I posted this in the Baptist forum:

This is really an issue of presuppositions guiding our view of what scripture is. The Reformers were not influenced as we are by the radical individualism found during and after the Enlightenment which impacts our theology.

Douglas Wilson writes, "This witness is not offered by the Church as “something to think about” or as a mere “suggestion.” The testimony of the Church on this point is submissive to Scripture, but authoritative for the saints. For example, if an elder in a Christian church took it upon himself to add a book to the canon of Scripture, or sought to take away a book, the duty of his church would be to try him for heresy and remove him immediately. This disciplinary action is authoritative, taken in defense of an authoritative canonical settlement. This does not mean the Church is defending the Word of God; the Church is defending her witness to the Word. As the necessity of discipline makes plain, this witness is dogmatic and authoritative. It is not open for discussion. God does not intend for us to debate the canon of Scripture afresh every generation. We have already given our testimony; our duty now is to remain faithful to it."

Wilson is expressing the same opinion of the Reformers who accepted the churches defined canon. Those who prefer a critical text/eclectic text method are using secular rationalism in defining the New Testament text, and they have to admit that scripture is selected by the text critic. You want to wrest the biblical text from the liberals by assuming liberal presuppositions to do so. In the office of a scholar many manuscripts are studied. The assumption is often stated that "only the originals are inspired." (Of course you cannot prove even the originals are inspired because you do not have them. You accept it on faith.) The scholar must conduct examinations of the many manuscripts to determine which verse is more likely to be inspired and therefore authentic. But what kind of method does he use? What is his rule to determine what is, might be or is not scripture? The Bible critic or critics, whatever the case may be, must choose and whatever kind of rule chosen becomes their guiding principle. It is not driven by the logic of faith the Reformers used but a secular naturalistic presupposition. This presupposition looks to man for answers and denies the God who acts in history and intervenes in our daily lives. It ultimately denies the God breathed nature of the Bible.

This rational approach falls prey to the fallacy of induction. The scholar begins with the manuscript evidence he has in his hands, the assumption that only the originals are inspired and attempts to form an opinion on the validity of the readings by the manuscript evidence available to him. If the scholar makes an assessment of 9 manuscripts he might observe that 1 John 5:7 is not among them and may doubt the reading as valid. This is called a hasty generalization. Was the scholar ever able to assess all the manuscripts that ever existed? Was he able to consider the phantom original, the one and only inspired copy of 1 John? No. If more manuscripts become unearthed they may prove to be older then the first 9 he examined and contain the doubted passage. The scholar is never able to quote from scripture as authoritative since he is not able to know for certain which verses are valid and which ones are not. All authority in matters of faith and practice are found in the scholar himself and in his ability to discern the New Testament canon anew for every generation. Who are these scholars you would have to determine our canon? Do they believe the Bible is the word of God? In an articule on the TBS site the following was quoted: "Bart Ehrman states, “there is always a degree of doubt, an element of subjectivity.” Kurt Aland declares that the latest Text of the United Bible Societies is “not a static entity” and “every change in it is open to challenge.” G. Zuntz admits that “the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to that scepticism which inclines towards regarding ‘the original text’ as an unattainable mirage." [end quote]

I do not believe the Reformers stuck their heads in the sand when it came to the biblical text but approached it with faith. Francis Turretin wrote a great summation of the doctrine, consider Whitaker as well. Dr. Daniel Wallace is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and is considered an expert in ancient biblical Greek and New Testament criticism. He's one of us, the good guys and believes the Bible is authoritative. In a blog post about the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature he wrote,

"As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead."

Who are these experts who will give us a testimony worthy of receiving?

I understand what you are getting at. We differ greatly on the issue of scripture and I'm probably not doing a good job of explaining the position held by the Reformers, framers of the confessions, etc. The Puritan Board has some really excellent posts that deal with the supposed difficultly of holding to the confessional position.

Yours in the Lord,

 

[JM]

Here’s an example from Dr. White (whom I love and pray for often) and fellow commenter. The link for the complete exchange will be listed below.

Dr. White, the opponent “makes the claim that the NA28 offers "conjectural emendations" that have no manuscript support as part of his criticism of my comments on the Comma Johanneum, a text that, if it is original, destroys all hope of an accurate NT manuscript tradition, I might add. Anyway, he says that I and others like me are being inconsistent to promote the NA28 for its cj's (as they were noted in the earlier apparati). Two problems: 1) the cj's are never put in the text, and hence are not translated by any translation; 2) these cj's, which appeared in earlier editions of the NA text, have been REMOVED from the NA28. They are gone from the apparatus. See, for example, the Bradshaw cj noted for "agra" in 2 Peter 3:10 in NA27, but gone in NA28.”

Seems straight forward. The fella recommending the use of a traditional text missed an important fact. Right? Maybe not…a commenter followed up with:

"1) the cj's are never put in the text."
That is simply incorrect. Readings with no Greek manuscript support are adopted by NA28 in Acts 16:12 and in Second Peter 3:10.

You continue:
"They are gone from the apparatus. See, for example, the Bradshaw cj noted for "agra" in 2 Peter 3:10 in NA27, but gone in NA28."

That has nothing to do with what Jeff Riddle was talking about. The reading in Second Peter 3:10 that has no Greek manuscript support, but has been adopted in the text of NA28, is not Bradshaw's conjecture (that ERGA should be followed by "ARGA"). Riddle was referring, instead, to the variant-unit at the very end of the verse. The compilers of NA28 adopted "OUC EUREQHSETAI" ("shall not be found"), adding "OUC" without any Greek manuscript support.

The name of the person who made the humorous mistake about the NA28's adoption of a reading in Second Peter 3:10 that has no Greek manuscript support is not Jeff Riddle. [end quote]

Who do we believe?

Another poster commented:

White's only justification for what he is doing is "...otherwise Bart Ehrman will make fun of us!" Not to mention finger-wagging Muslims mocking us Christians who - gasp - believe in supernatural preservation. Scholars who engage in constructing the Bible from divergent manuscripts (some cartoonishly corrupt and mutilated) consider the Bible - by default, inherently - as something that needs them more than they need it. The Bible becomes a mere document like any other man-constructed text document. The atheist scholars accept this approach within themselves consciously; the believing scholars are un-self-aware regarding this. The overall effect is exactly what the Jesuits of the Counter-Reformation attempted in the 16th century. Defile confidence in the Word of God within believing Christians (those evil Protestants) and turn them back to the 'authority' of the word of man (the Romanist Magisterium). Short of that, create a situation of weak and constantly attacked faith. The Devil can only play for time, he can annoy God's plan, but he can't defeat God's plan, which basically means harassing the process of the regeneration of God's elect by the Word and the Spirit. God's elect know the voice of the Shepherd though, ultimately, and all obstacles will be overcome by God's people through the power and victory of Jesus Christ. [end quote]

Can we have faith in Christ to preserve our souls but not a biblical set of mss?

Yours in the Lord,

jm

http://confessingbaptist.com/jeff-r...to-issues-related-to-textual-criticism-audio/

 

[drjean]

I know no other faith that would allow umpteen new versions of God's Word (or their leaders' words) every year!!!

With that said, God promises His Word will not return to Him void. Since the Spirit of the Bible, NT specifically, remains the same, we can still win others using "any" version. I, myself, steer clear of the versions with radical variances, and totally away from all paraphrasing ones

 

[JM]

Very true brother. Thank God the Spirit saves by (can I quote Malcolm X or is that Sartre?), "By any means necessary..."

 

[abacabb3]

Aba, those examples are not random.

Well mine were.

Consider 1 John 5.7.

Clearly not in the original autographs, even according to Erasmus who put together the TR, but ok.

Dr. White tells us we have no evidence from the early church to support the inclusion. Fine. The Eastern Orthodox claim they do, so do many other not so famous Protestants, so they include 1 John 5.7.

Where is there evidence? There are no manuscripts in the Greek with it aside from Greek ones from the 1500s which were made as forgeries.

Further, it lacks reference throughout all the trinitarian controversies from the church fathers, which makes no sense if it actually existed in the autographs and any early manuscripts. That one verse alone would have settled the controversy.

Others like Gill believe we have textual reasons for keeping 1 John 5.7.

So, if textual criticism agrees with you it's ok now?

The question is this: are each different manuscript the word of God or not? Answer this and you have answered the whole question.

Point is, the modern view disregards the witness of the church.

Interesting, being that the insertion of 1 John 5:7 ignores 400 years of manuscripts and early church history.

You cannot appeal to scripture if you cannot be sure it is scripture.

Sure I can, because it has never been demonstrated that any of the manuscripts have any divergences which would actually matter.

The old Reformed confessions and catechisms referenced passages that are now considered interpolations. You cannot refer to them with any certainty.

True. While the confessions are important, they are not the basis of our faith.

I would recommend logging into the Puritan Board if you have any doubt as to the scholarly weight of the TR or BT position.

The TR was the result of 16th century biblical criticism though, that's the part of your position I don't get. They were looking in different manuscripts and picking and choosing what they thought was best. It is even in the forward of the KJV for example.

This is really an issue of presuppositions guiding our view of what scripture is. The Reformers were not influenced as we are by the radical individualism found during and after the Enlightenment which impacts our theology.

Sound like make believe. The KJV was derived from a collection of manuscripts. A conscious decision was made to derive the OT from the Masoretic Text, even though it clearly diverged with OT renderings that God Himself inspired the NT writers to quote in the NT.

You cannot escape it. A perfect manuscript has not fallen into heaven in our hands and this was never the position of the Church.

This rational approach falls prey to the fallacy of induction. The scholar begins with the manuscript evidence he has in his hands..

Which Jerome did...which Erasmus did. Which the KJV did...which every group of translators has ever done.

I understand what you are getting at. We differ greatly on the issue of scripture and I'm probably not doing a good job of explaining the position held by the Reformers, framers of the confessions, etc. The Puritan Board has some really excellent posts that deal with the supposed difficultly of holding to the confessional position.p

Honestly, I just don't find the position logical. No one has a perfect set of manuscripts and those great translations belonging to the Church employed textual criticism and discernment in the choice of manuscripts. It just cannot be avoided.