Doctrines Changed in Modern Versions

Because 100 copies of an error do not make it less an error. Consider how simple this principle is in our daily lives. We have rejected the vast majority of world religions in history for one. Why can we lean towards the one when it goes against the majority? Becuase we adhere to truth. I realize the analogy is not flawless but it shows the principle. We cannot be interested simply in "vote counting." We are more interested in accuracy. There are a number of text critical canons that are used to make decisions like this. Some are these:

1. The older is more likely to be accurate because it is closer to the originals without as much possibility for corruption in copying over centuries.

2. The shorter is more likely to be accurate because things tend to get added more than deleted.

3. The harder is more likely to be accurate because of scribal tendencies to simplify things. This canon is true "provided it is not too difficult."

Yet one of these is not sufficient. All must be balanced against each other. In sum, a text critic is looking for the reading that best explains the other ones. They look for reasons why something would get the way it was. Say for example we have manuscripts A, B, C. Assuming A is original, how would B and C develop. Assuming B is original, how would A and C develop. Assuming C was original, how would A and B develop. Metzger's textual commentary is a valuable source that shows how this principle is put into action. Perhaps a few citations regarding your verses would demonstrate:

On Mark 9:42, "The presence of eis eme is very strongly attested (actual manuscripts listed but here omitted since I don't have the characters). At the same time, however, the absence of the words fo aleph, D, and Delta, as well as the possibility that they may have come into the Markan text from the matthean parallel (18:6), casts substantial doubt upon their right to a firm place in the second Gospel. The Committee therefore decided to enclse the phrase within square brackets" (p. 86).

On JOhn 6:47, "The addition of eis eme as the object of the verb 'believe' was both naturl and inevitable; the surprising thing is that relatively many copyists resisted the temptation. If the words had been present in the original text, no good reason can be suggested to account for their omission. The reading of the OLd Syriac has been assimilated to the text at 14.1" (p. 183). PL's comments: Here we see the work of the second principle above (shorter) plus principle of "accounting" (as I call it): What best accoutns for the others? The shorter: If "in me" had been original, it is so common that surely no one would have omitted it. Therefore, its omission in some texts is very unreasonable. Had the omission of "in me" been original, it is such a common phrase that it would have been very easy to add it in unintentionally. Therefore, the shorter reading accounts for the longer. The longer reading (in me) cannot well account for how it would have been left out.

Additionally, in many places the majority text disagrees with itself. The actual texts of hte majority text are not unanimous. They are divided. In those, you must enter into some process such as these canons to make determinations.

I could go on but this should give some evidence as to how these differences are treated in the eclectic texts today. MY overall point is, It is not as easy as counting the stacks of manuscripts.

 

Though admittedly out of my league in these discussions, and also being a user of the NIV, the lack of an answer to the Ethiopian's question in Acts 8:36 seems to leave a void.

The ESV adds this response (verse 37) in the footnotes, the NIV, copyright 1995, does not. It appears from the Gospelcom website that the footnote has been added since then.

 

Because textual criticism is not a "democracy". There's more to the issue than just counting. How do *you* prefer the KJV when *it* disagrees with the majority???

Well, that's what the whole debate is about, isn't it. What about the "omissions" I listed? Why do they not count?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there more than one verse on a page? And how do you know what that reader would believe,: Christ is speaking in that verse, and would not the Holy Spirit help the reader understand that the verse is talking about believing in Christ and not believing in Santa Claus? Your objection is *really* weak. What if the reader instead read Mark 9:23, Rom 1:16, Rom 10:4, or 1 Cor 7:12 from the KJV, none of which explicitly specify what or who to "believe"?

Brian

 

My much older NIV (1985?) has the footnote.

 

Brian,

You bring up some good points.
I believe the TR as the basis for the KJV does agree with the majority 99% of the time.

Regarding the verses you listed, they were not "omissions." They were not in the text to begin with. The verses I referenced were actual omissions that were intentionally left out inspite of the fact that the majority contained them.

I do agree with you when you say the Holy Spirit will give understanding to the person in my scenario. My point was, he may not have the knowledge or ability to "cross reference" and come to the same conclusions you and I could.

Pastor Larry said:

The only problem I have with this is that the majority of world religions we have rejected do not agree with each other. The extant writings we have available to us do agree with each other the overwhelming majority of the time.

I do not subscribe to the theory that "older is better." Older may indicate unuse. Unuse may indicate error.

If anyone is interested, I would like to see a thread started regarding the methods used by the scribes who actually copied God's Word.

 

But this is what the debate is about. You say the other were not in the text to begin with. Yet they were obviously in some text at some point in history. And you say these were left out in spite of the majority containing them. Yet here, the KJV falls on 1 JOhn 5:7 which is included even though the majority omits it. In other words, it is just not this simple. Apart from possessing the original autographa, we simply do not know "drop dead certain" what the ipssissima verba (exact words) were.

Actually, I bet you do. Let me ask, If you hear a rumor about something, do you try to trace it back to the original source or do you accept the source that told you even if it has passed through 4 or 5 different people? Do we not all practice this principle?

Older may indicate unuse. It may also indicate preservation. Unuse may indicate error. But it may indicate a more pristine condition because it has not been copied as much. In other words, to say that early believers did not use these manuscripts becuase of error is an argument from silence. They did not tell us that. I admit it is convenient for your argument, but does it really do justice to the facts? It cannot be substantiated that it is true.

That copying thread may come about. In general it was done by aural methods (listening and copying what someone reads), or visual (looking and copying). Both methods have their problems and are demonstrated in the variants available to us today.

 

Clint Kritzer said:

Though admittedly out of my league in these discussions, and also being a user of the NIV, the lack of an answer to the Ethiopian's question in Acts 8:36 seems to leave a void.

How so? It's perfectly normal for us to ask something like, "Why don't we go out to dinner tonight?"

We're not looking for our significant others to provide reasons why we should stay home (though some might be offered if said S.O. is disagreeable); rather, we are suggesting a course of action: "Let's go out." It's a rhetorical question.

Implicit in the Ethiopian's rhetorical question is the answer, "Nothing" - as evidenced by the fact that he was, indeed, baptized.

But let's turn the tables on the KJV-onlyists here. Compare Acts 10:47, where Peter asks essentially the same question: "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized[?]" Nowhere does the text say anyone said "If they believe with all their hearts they may be baptized," nor does anyone respond "We believe Christ is the son of God." Why is it bad for the modern versions to "omit" Acts 8:37 but not for the KJV to "omit" a hypothetical Acts 10:47 1/2? Why does the supposed theological problem in the modern versions not also obtain in the KJV?

 

The so-called "canons" of "Modern Scientific Textual Criticism" are far from being objective and are more likely designed to point toward a certain text, the Alexandrian. Let's take a look at three of these so-called "canons."

The problem with the "older" theory is that the Alexandrian readings are not the "oldest" readings. But for some reason the so-called "Modern Scientific Textual Critics" keep saying over and over again they are the oldest. Rather like Hitler's theory of the "Big Lie" - if you repeat it enough people will begin to believe it!

This is also designed to point toward the Alexandrian text, for it is most often shorter than the Byzantine majority. In fact, those who have studied the causes of textual corruption have found exactly the opposite to be true. The major causes of corruption are:</font>

• Haplograph - the omission of a letter changing the word</font>
• Dittography - the repetition of a letter changing the word</font>
• Metathesis - The reversal of two letters changing the word</font>
• Homeoteleuton - The omission of words as a result of the scribe losing his place</font>
• Kakiagraphy - the misspelling of words changing the word</font>
• Itacisms - mistakes due to the similarity in sounds of Greek vowels and dipthongs</font>

As we can see, these causes of corruption will most often result in the omitting of words or phrases rather than the insertion of such.

Again, this is designed to point toward the Alexandrian texts for they are demonstrably less accurate examples of scribal transcription then the Byzantine majority. Just look at the two "best" manuscipts of the Alexandrian text, Aleph and B, which are well known to disagree between themselves over 3000 times in the gospel accounts alone, and the fact that Aleph has been described as one of the worst manuscripts ever discovered, covered with corrections (in several hands) cross outs, subscripts, superscripts, and other changes.
Now, as to the "copies of the same manuscript" argument, well, it just won't hold water! Robinson/Pierpont write:

I recommend that every serious student of textual issues go to http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/RobPier.html and read this excellent article by two of the best textual scholars alive today. It will clear up a lot of misunderstanding regarding "Modern Scientific Textual Criticism."

What I find hilarious about the "Byzantine copy" theory, that the Byzantine manuscripts are really just many copies of the same source, is that, the "canons" of "Modern Scientific Textual Criticism" have determined when Aleph and B agree, the text is virtually certain. Of course, most of the textual scholars who have studied Aleph and B have come to the conclusion that Aleph is a copy of B! B dates to about 325 AD and Aleph to about 350, and the owners of B have published extensively on the evidence showing that Aleph is a copy. So, when a manuscipt and a copy agree, the text is virtually certian, but when a text and several hundred copies agree, there is doubt! LOL! ROFLOL! Talk about a double standard!

 

Hi Ransom -

My contribution to this thread has to do with the original question as to omissions in MV's leaving out specific doctrines. Phillip's reponse to the Ethiopian is a strong case for "believer's baptism" as opposed to other reasonings that lead to practices such as infant baptisms.

The fact of the matter is that "nothing" is NOT the answer to the question "Why shouldn't I be baptized?" People can be baptized for the wrong reasons, i.e. "my parents wanted me to", "I want to cover my bases", "I want to insure my child's salvation", etc.

The answer to the Ethiopians query is a cornerstone in our Baptist doctrine. We are baptized as a profession of our love of Christ and it is done in obedience to His command.

 

Thanks for your comments Thomas. They are very informative and contain much worthy of serious dialogue.

If these canons prove accurate in fields other than biblical criticism, can we truly say that they were “designed to point towards a certain text”? Doesn’t that prejudice the argument against more than is sustainable? Should we not say rather that they did what they were designed to do? (I comment below that this does not seem appreciably different than what RP does. They prefer a texttype and work their argument to get to it, it seems.)

Your list of major causes of corruption are the things I was too busy (lazy??) to look up yesterday but that is what I was referring to. Yet in most cases, that is not what causes the different lengths of texts (with the except “homeoteleuton” where a scribe loses his place. However, that is not always omission; it can also be repetition.). The shorter/longer distinction is not in the realm of these kinds of errors. It is in the realm of things like “Jesus Christ” vs. “Jesus Christ our Lord” or “Jesus” vs. “Jesus Christ.” In these cases, the accounting principle comes into play. If “our Lord” is original, there is no reason it would be left out. If it was not original it is easy to see how it might be added since it is a common phrase construction. Hence the longer/shorter distinction is more significant than things affected by the list you mention.

I am not sure that you properly characterized the “more difficult” canon. It is not about disagreements between texts in terms of families being inconsistent among themselves but rather deals with things like grammar, structure, word choice, etc. In this, the common errors you listed would play a greater role. Perhaps I misunderstand your comments on that topic.

On RPs quote that you cite, would that not come close to being an argument designed to point toward their conclusion, as you suggested with WH above? It seems that they have a variety of different manuscripts “not closely-related in any genealogical sense” that they want to use as a testimony of independence. Yet, we would still have to argue that they (or their immediate parents) derived at some point from the same text (whether the originals or a corruption of them). In other words, they might be further removed from a parent document, but they are still descendants of it. The same can be said for all manuscripts, even Aleph and B. Where they agree, they show evidence of descent from a common parent document (no matter how far removed). Where they disagree they show either carelessness (or some other kind of human error) or an intermediary document subject to carelessness.

One of your last statements caught my attention and piqued my interest. You say, So, when a manuscript and a copy agree, the text is virtually certain, but when a text and several hundred copies agree, there is doubt! If I understand, the argument by some is that Aleph is a copy of B, hence manuscript and copy. Yet RB argue that the copies are “genealogically unrelated” (though I question how that can be above). My question to you is, Where is the parent text of the Byzantine text type? We do not have it do we? Or did I miss something? In other words, we can see the parent/daughter relationship (perhaps) between Aleph and B. But we cannot see that in the Byzantine text type because we do not have the parent. How does your argument then stand?

One last question: In places where the majority text is significantly split, what process is used to determine the reading? I think Luke 17:35 is one of these (if my memory serves me correctly).

I hope this makes a little sense. I am writing in a hurry and on the fly. I look forward to your well-reasoned and tightly-woven response. In lieu of that, I will take whatever you can offer on this

[ August 22, 2002, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Clint Kritzer said:

The fact of the matter is that "nothing" is NOT the answer to the question "Why shouldn't I be baptized?" People can be baptized for the wrong reasons, i.e. "my parents wanted me to", "I want to cover my bases", "I want to insure my child's salvation", etc.

True, but none of those pertain to either the story of the Ethiopian eunuch or the household of Cornelius. That is implicit in the fact that in both cases, they were baptized.

The answer to the Ethiopians query is a cornerstone in our Baptist doctrine. We are baptized as a profession of our love of Christ and it is done in obedience to His command.

Again, however, that is implicit in the fact that he was baptized.

The problem with KJV-only reasoning on points like this, is that they seem rather enamoured with the fallacious reasoning that claims if something isn't spelled out explicitly, it is being explicitly denied. Thus credobaptism is "denied" because the explicit confession of Acts 8:37 is "omitted"; the virgin birth is "denied" because some verse in Matthew "omits" the word "firstborn"; and so forth, as though no one is capable of drawing the obvious conclusion from what we are told.

In the case of Acts 8:37, for example, the KJV-onlyists claim that "omitting" this verse "changes doctrine" since it opens the door for paedobaptism or baptismal regeneration. On the contrary, I would respond that since nowhere else in the New Testament can a plain case be made for either of these errors, neither would I expect to see them in Acts 8.

 

The true "canons of textual criticism" would read something like this:

1. Antiquity - The age of the actual manuscript. This is not a conclusive text for a 14th century mss may be an accurate copy of a 3rd century mss, whereas a 6th century mss may be a poor copy of a 3rd century mss.

2. Consent - The number of other witnesses. Normal practice is to accept the word of the majority of witnessess against the different readings of a few, especially when those few do not agree with each other.

3. Variety - The universality of evidence. Manuscripts supporting a certain reading should come from a variety of geopgraphical locations and be attested to be a variety of other mss, lectionaries, versions, and Patristics.

4. Respectability - The reliability of the witness. Manuscripts which habitually contain errors are poor witnesses.

5. Continuity - The unbroken tradition of a witness. Have the readings/mss in question been widely accepted by churches over a wide spectrum of time?

6. Context - The evidence of the whole passage. The nature of the text surrounding a questioned reading can cast much light on the issue. If the reading is surrounded by obvious errors, it is much less likely to be a true reading.

7. Reasonableness - The internal credibility of the text. If a text contains grammatical absurdities, or obvious geographical, scientific, or biblical errors, the reading is not likely to be reliable.

 

To Japheth:

On Aug. 20 you objected to the modern versions referring to Joseph as Jesus's father. However, since it was pointed out that the KJV does the very same thing in Luke 2:48, you have not responded. Does this mean that the MV's are correct in their wording since they agree with the KJV? I would just like to know what you think about this. Thank you for your consideration.

 

Thank you for catching that Joshua and for making the statements about the footnotes, etc. Most of the KJV users like to say things about the "footnotes" or cross-references in their Thompsons, or their Scofields, but they don't want us to do the same. I greatly appreciate your imput!

B.T.

 

In the course of the English language throughout history...the word "father" has also been used for stepfather. So, I see no conflict here, especially having been raised with a stepfather whom was referred to as my father (and later adopted me.)

B.T.

 

Also, to answer the question, was Joseph Jesus father? Yes, in the respect that he handled the upbringing of Jesus Christ. He was chargable for the things he taught his step son, taking on fatherly responsibilities.

B.T.

 

The ESV adds this response (verse 37) in the footnotes, the NIV, copyright 1995, does not. It appears from the Gospelcom website that the footnote has been added since then.</font>[/QUOTE]I just checked my NIV cross reference, and it is in the footnotes. So, what is the problem?

B.T.

 

Well, all I can do is post these links for anyone interested:

http://www.staggs.pair.com/kjbp/kjb-docs/docchang.txt

http://home.sprynet.com/~eastwood01/kjv04.htm

www.watch.pair.com/another.html

http://www.fillthevoid.org/Versions/Differences-2.html

 

A particularly salient and unfortunately often overlooked point by these lists is "context." These people ignore the fact that these verses exist in a context that almost always clears up any issue that they would reaise. For instance, John 6:35 and the omission of "in me" is clearly ignoring the context of the chapter. Any one who read John 6 will know who they are to believe in. 1 Tim 3:16 adn the "change" from God to "He" is immediately cleared up by anyone who reads v. 15. However, when you read the context, you lose the basis for these types of arguments.

Let's study Scripture in context and these lists become very very short.