Following are excerpts of various passages from a book of this same title, written by Wilbur Pickering in 1977, and revised in 1980. It is from this revised edition that I intent to quote.
Along with the excerpts are notes I took as I read the book.
Chapter 1 - Introduction
“There are over 5,000 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. They range in size from a scrap with parts of two verses to complete New Testaments. They range in date from the second century to the sixteenth. They come from all over the Mediterranean world. They contain several hundred thousand variant readings (differences in text). The vast majority of these are misspellings or obvious errors due to carelessness or ignorance on the part of copyists." pg. 16, par. 1
Support for various modern versions "tend to form two clusters, or camps, and these camps differ substantially from each other. In very broad and over-simplified terms, one camp generally follows the large majority of the manuscripts (between 80 and 90 percent) which are in essential agreement among themselves but which do not date from before the fifth century. A.D., while the other generally follows a small handful (often less than 10) of the earlier manuscripts (from the third, fourth, and fifth centuries) which not only disagree with the majority, but also disagree among themselves. The second camp has been in general control of the scholarly world for" more than "the last 100 years." pg. 16, par. 2
"The most visible consequence and proof of that control may be seen in the translations of the New Testament into English done during these 100 years. Virtually every one of them reflects a form of the text based upon the few earlier manuscripts. In contrast to them, the King James Version reflects a form of the text based on the many later manuscripts. Thus, the fundamental difference between the New Testament in the American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, Today's English Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, etc., on the one hand, and in the King James Version on the other hand is that they are based on different forms of the Greek text. (There are over 5,000 differences between those two forms.)" pg. 16, par. 3.
"To the extent that you may be aware of these matters you may well have accepted as reasonable the statements usually made to the effect that the very considerable improvement in our stock of available materials (Greek manuscripts and other witnesses) and in our understanding of what to do with them (principals of textual criticism) has made possible a closer approximation of the original text in our day than was achieved several hundred years ago. The statements to be found in the prefaces of some versions give the reader the impression that this improvement is reflected in their translations. For example, the preface to the Revised Standard Version. p. ix, says:
The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying... We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text.
And the preface to the New International Version, p. viii, says:
The Greek text used in the work of translation was an eclectic one. No other piece of ancient literature has so much manuscript support as does the New Testament. Where existing texts differ, the translators made their choice of readings in accord with sound principles of textual criticism."
As a note here, an eclectic editor follows now one now another set of witnesses (manuscripts, etc.) in accord with what is deemed to be the author's style or the way he wants it to be translated. In other words, the use of an eclectic text simply leaves us up to the whims of the interpreter, as to which Greek text was used.
"But if you have used a number of modern versions you may have noticed some things that perhaps intrigued, bewildered, or even distressed you. I am thinking of the degree to which they differ among themselves, the uncertainty as to the identity of the text reflected in the many footnotes regarding the textual variants, and the nature and extent of their common divergence from the King James Version.
The bulk of the differences between the modern versions is presumably due to differences in style and translation technique. However, although they are in essential agreement as to the Greek text used, no two of them are based on an identical Greek text. Nor have the translators been entirely sure as to the precise wording of the text." pg. 17-18
Chapter 3 - The Wescott-Hort Critical Theory
"Brooke Foss Wescott and Fenton John Anthony Hort (Wescott-Hort) developed a theory of interpretation in the mid-1800s. This theory was put forth in order to destroy the Textus Receptus (the Greek text of Stephens - 1550, from which the King James Version was translated). This theory lead to the publishing of their books 'The New Testament In The Original Greek` (2 Vols.; London: Macmillan and Co., 1881).
At the age of 23, in late 1851, Hort wrote to a friend:
I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus. . . . Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late manuscripts; it is a blessing there are such early ones." pg.31, par. 1-2.
The above quotation is taken from Hort's own books, 'Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort' (2 Vols., London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1896, pg. 211).
"Scarcely more than a year later, the plan of a joint (with B. F. Wescott) revision of the text of the Greek Testament was first definitely agree upon. And with that year (1853) Hort wrote to a friend that he hoped to have the new text out in a little more than a year. That it actually took 28 years does not obscure the circumstance that though uninformed, by his own admission, Hort conceived a personal animosity for the Textus Receptus, and only because it was based entirely, as he thought, on late manuscripts. It appears that Hort did not arrive at his theory through unprejudiced intercourse with the facts. Rather, he deliberately set out to construct a theory that would vindicate his preconceived animosity for the Received Text (Textus Receptus). Hort organized his entire argument to depose the Textus Receptus." Pg. 31-32
"And that explains the nature and extent of the common divergence of the modern versions from the AV (King James Version) - they are based essentially on the W-H theory and text, whereas the AV is essentially based on the Textus Receptus." pg. 39, par. 2
Chapter 4 - An Evaluation of the W-H Theory
"Should the New Testament be treated just like any other book? Will the procedures used on the works of Homer or Aristotle suffice? If both God and Satan had an intense interest in the fate of the New Testament text, presumably not. But how can we test the fact or extent of supernatural intervention? Happily, we have eyewitness accounts to provide at least a partial answer. Hort said that 'there are no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes,' but the early Church Fathers disagree. Metzger states:
Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Eusebius, and many other Church Fathers accused the heretics of corrupting the Scriptures in order to have support for their special views." pg. 41, par. 1-2.
I think this is well recognized by Paul in his day (~60 A.D.), for in II Corinthians 2:17, he says, 'For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God:' It is well known (see II Peter 3:15-16) that the New Testament writers knew in their day that they were at that time writing Scripture. And, they also knew that in their day there were already on the scene those who would corrupt the Scriptures for "their special views".
"Gaius, an orthodox Father who wrote between A.D. 175 and 200, names Asclepiades, Theodotus, Hermophilus, and Apollonides as heretics who prepared corrupted copies of their fabrications.
Surely Hort knew the words of Origen:
Nowadays, as is evident, there is a great diversity between various manuscripts, either through the negligence of certain copyists, or the perverse audacity shown by same in correcting the text, or through the fault of those, who, playing the part of correctors, lengthen or shorten it as they please." pg. 41, par. 3, pg. 42, par. 1-3.
"The majority of variant reading in the New Testament were created for theological or dogmatic reasons." pg. 42, par. 5
E. C. Colwell says, "In the manuscripts of the New Testament most variations, I believe, were made deliberately." pg. 42, par. 7
Let me repeat here what has been stated prior to this. The Textus Receptus, and therefore the King James New Testament, came from what is known to be a majority of the existent manuscripts, and that in general, these manuscripts are dated from around 500 A.D. or later. Almost all modern day translations, as cited before, came from so called earlier manuscripts (10% out of 5,000 extant), as a results of the work of Wescott and Hort. I think something that they missed though is stated by Burgon is his book THE TRADITIONAL TEXT on page 116:
"As far as the Fathers who died before 400 A.D. are concerned, the question may now be put and answered. Do they witness to the Traditional Text as existing from the first, or do they not? The results of the evidence, both as regards the quantity and the quality of the testimony, enable us to reply, not only that the Traditional Test was in existence, but that it was predominant, during the period under review." pg. 68, par. 4.
In other words, the Traditional Text, from which came the Stephen's text of 1550, from which came the King James New Testament, was known to have existed in the Apostolic days.
"As we have already noted, Hort declared the Textus Receptus to be 'villainous' and 'vile' when he was only twenty-three years old - before he had studied the evidence, before he had worked through the text to evaluate variant (manuscript) readings one by one. Do you suppose he brought an open mind to that study and evaluation?" pg. 93, par. 1 (parenthesis mine)
Chapter 5 - The History of the Text
"It is clear that the apostle Paul, at least, considered his writings to be authorative - see 1 Cor. 14:37, 2 Cor. 10:1-16, Gal. 1:6-12, and 2 Thess. 3:1-14. And it is reasonable to infer from Col. 4:16 that he expected his writings to have a wider audience that just the particular church addressed.
Peter, also, puts the commandments of the apostles (himself included) in the same class with 'the holy prophets' (2 Pet. 3:2). In 1 Tim. 5:18 Paul puts the Gospel of Luke (10:7) on the same level as Deuteronomy (25:4), calling them both 'Scripture'.
Taking the traditional and conservative point of view, 1 Timothy is generally thought to have been written within five years after Luke. Luke was recognized and declared by apostolic authority to be Scripture as soon as it came off the press, so to speak." pg. 100, par. 5-7
"In 2 Pet. 3:15-16, Peter puts the epistles of Paul on the same level as 'the other Scriptures'.
Clement of Rome, whose first letter to the Corinthians is usually dated about 96 A.D., made liberal use of the Scripture, appealing to its authority, and used the New Testament material right alongside Old Testament material. - - - Here is the bishop of Rome, before the close of the first century, writing an official letter to the church at Corinth wherein a selection of New Testament books are recognized and declared by episcopal authority to be Scripture, including Hebrews." pg. 101, par. 1-2.
"The writings of Irenaeus (died in 202 A.D.), his major work AGAINST HERETICS being written about 185 A.D., are about equal in volume to those of all the preceding Fathers put together.
His testimony to the authority and inspiration of the Holy Scriptures is clear and unequivocal. It pervades the whole of his writings; and this testimony is more than ordinarily valuable because it must be regarded as directly representing three churches at least, those of Lyons, Asia Minor, and Rome. The authoritative use of both Testaments is clearly laid down.
Irenaeus stated that the apostles taught that God is the "Author of both Testaments (AGAINST HERETICS IV. 32.2) and evidently considered the New Testament writings to form a second Canon. ---- Evidently the dimensions of the New Testament Canon recognized by Irenaeus are very close to what we have today."
pg. 105, par.3-5.
"Peter's statement concerning the twisting Paul's words were receiving (2 Peter 3:16) suggests there was awareness and concern as to the text and the way it was being handled." pg. 107, par. 1.
"The early Fathers furnish a few helpful clues as to the state of affairs. The letters of Ignatius contain several references to a considerable traffic between the churches (of Asia Minor, Greece, Rome) by way of messengers (often official), which seems to indicate a deep sense of solidarity binding them together, and a wide circulation of news and attitudes - a problem with a heretic in one place would soon be know all over, etc. That there was a strong feeling about the integrity of the Scriptures is made clear by Polycarp, 'Whoever perverts the sayings of the Lord . . that one is the first-born of Satan'.
Similarly, Justin Martyr says (Apol. i.58), 'the wicked demons have also put forward Marcion of Pontus.' - - - that fact causes us who are disciples of the true and pure doctrine of Jesus Christ to be more faithful and steadfast in the hope announced by Him." pg. 107, par. 2-3
"Thus Marcion's truncated canon evidently stirred the faithful to define the true canon." pg. 107, par. 4.
"Thus, Irenaeus (died 202 AD) said that the doctrine of the apostles had been handed down by the succession of bishops, being guarded and preserved, without any forging of the Scriptures, allowing neither addition nor curtailment, involving public reading without falsification.
Tertullian, also, says of his right to the New Testament Scriptures, 'I hold sure title-deeds from the original owners themselves'.
In order to ensure accuracy of transcription, authors would sometimes add at the close of their literary works an adjuration directed to future copyists. So, for example, Irenaeus attached to the close of his treatise "on the Ogdoad' the following note: 'I adjure you who shall copy out of this book, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by His glorious advent when He comes to judge the living and the dead, that you compare what you transcribe, and correct it carefully against this manuscript from which you copy; and also that you transcribe this adjuration and insert it in the copy.
If Irenaeus took such extreme precautions for the accurate transmission of his own work, how much more would he be concerned for the accurate copying of the Word of God. In fact, he demonstrates his concern for the accuracy of the text by defending the traditional reading of a single letter. The question is whether the John the Apostle wrote (666) or (616) in Rev. 13:18. Irenaeus asserts that 666 is found 'in all the most approved and ancient copies' and that 'those men who saw John face to face' bear witness to it. And he warns those who made the change (of a single letter) that 'there shall be no light punishment upon him who either adds or subtracts anything from Scripture'.
Considering Polycarp's intimacy with John, his personal copy of Revelation would most probably have been taken from the Autograph. And considering Irenaeus' veneration for Polycarp, his personal copy of Revelation was probably taken from Polycarp's. Although Irenaeus evidently was no longer able to refer to the Autograph (not ninety years after it was written!) he was clearly in a position to identify a faithful copy and to declare with certainty the original reading - this in 186 A.D. Which brings us to Tertullian." Pg. 108, pg. 109, par. 1.
Tertullian, in writing of the apostolic churches, said that these were "places, in which their very own writings are read." Pg. 109, par. 2.
"It seems that Tertullian is claiming that Paul's Autographs were still being read in his day, but at the very least he must mean that they were using faithful copies. --- I believe we are obliged to conclude that in the year 200 the Ephesian Church was still in a position to identify the original wording of her letter---." Pg. 109, par. 3.
"1) Possession of the Autographs
Speaking in terms of regions, Asia Minor may be safely said to have had twelve (John, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 and 3 John, and Revelation), Greece may be safely said to have had six (1 and 2 Corinthians, Phillipians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Titus in Crete), Rome may be safely said to have had two (Mark and Romans) - as to the rest, Luke, Acts, and 2 Peter were probably held by either Asia Minor or Rome; Matthew and James by either Asia Minor or Palestine; Hebrews by Rome or Palestine; while it is hard to state even a probability for Jude it was quite possibly held by Asia Minor. Taking Asia Minor and Greece together, the Agean area held the Autographs of a least eighteen (two-thirds of the total) and possibly as many as twenty-four of the twenty-seven new Testament books; Rome held at least two and possibly up to seven; Palestine may have held up to three; Alexandria (Egypt) held none. The Agean region clearly had the best start, and Alexandria the worst. On the face of it, we may reasonable assume that in the earliest period of the transmission on the N. T. text the most reliable copies of the Autographs would be circulating in the region that held the Autographs.
2) The spread of good copies
The making of copies would have began at once. The authors clearly intended their writings to be circulated, and the quality of the writings was so obvious that the word would get around and each assembly would want a copy. That Clement and Barnabas quote and allude to a variety of N. T. books by the turn of the century makes clear that copies were in circulation. A Pauline corpus was known to Peter before 70 A. D. Polycarp, in answer to a request from the Phillipian church, sent a collection of Ignatius' letters to them, possibly within five years after Ignatius wrote them. Evidently, it was normal procedure to make copies and collections (of worthy writings) so each assembly could have a set. Ignatius referred to the free travel and exchange between churches and Justin referred to the weekly practice of reading the Scriptures in the assemblies. Already by the year 100 there must have been many copies of the various books (some more than others) while it was certainly still possible to check a copy against the original, should a question arise." Pg. 111, par. 1 & 2.
So many times have I heard that we cannot possibly have the exact words that we spoken by Christ, or that were written by the Apostles. How can we so easily forget Psalms 12:6-7:
6) The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7) Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Is is not just the 'thoughts' of the Lord that are preserved, but it is the very WORDS. (Note: In many modern versions, this text has been corrupted and gives no indication of God’s preservaton of His Word.)
In Matthew 5:18, Jesus says:
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Surely Jesus was speaking of the Law of Moses here, but I believe we do this Scripture no injustice by applying these words to all Scripture, both Old and New. The 'jot' and 'tittle' were forms of Greek punctuation marks. If even these small things meant so much, how much more a 'word'?
"Gaius, an orthodox Father who wrote near the end of the second century, named four heretics who not only altered the text but had disciples who multiplied copies of their efforts. Of special interest here is his charge that they could not deny their guilt because they could not produce the originals from which they made their copies. This would be a hollow accusation from Gaius if he could not produce the Originals either." Pg. 115, par. 4.
"Is it not unreasonable to suppose that once an old manuscript became tattered and almost illegible in spots, the faithful would make an exact copy of it and then destroy it, rather than allow it to suffer the indignity of literally rotting away?" Pg. 130, par. 1.
The Autographs, and then the earliest faithful copies of the Autographs, due to constant usage by the Churches, soon became unreadable. I believe that faithful copies were made over the centuries, and that what we now see as "early age in a manuscript might well arouse our suspicions - why did it survive?" Pg. 134, par. 3.
" - our modern versions and critical texts are several times farther removed from the original than are the Authorized Version and the Textus Receptus. Pg. 149, par. 1.
"In terms of closeness to the original, the King James Version and the Textus Receptus have been the best available up to now." Pg. 150, par. 5.
"I believe in the verbal plenary inspirations of the Autographs. I believe that God has providentially preserved the original wording of the text down to our day, and that it is possible for us to know precisely what it it." Pg. 153, par. 1.
"There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to mankind the Scriptures of Truth, straightway abdicated His office; took no further care of His work; abandoned those precious writings to their fate. That a perpetual miracle was wrought for their preservation - that copyists were protected against the risk of error, or evil men prevented from adulterating shamefully copies of the Deposit - no one, it is presumed, is so weak as to suppose. But it is quite a different thing to claim that all down the ages the sacred writings must needs have been under God's peculiar care; the Church under Him has watched over them with intelligence and skill; has recognized which copies exhibit a fabricated, which an honestly transcribed text; has generally sanctioned the one, and generally disallowed the other." Pg. 154, par. 2.
"A theoretical presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents at each stage of transmission than visa versa. - - - a majority of texts will be far more likely to represent correctly the character of the original than a small minority of texts." Pg. 161, par. 1.
" - - modern criticism repeatedly and systematically rejects majority readings on a very large scale. But, with every such rejection, the probability that this rejection is valid is dramatically reduced. Pg. 168, par. 3.
" - we continue to insist that to reject Majority text readings in large numbers without furnishing a credible overall rationale for this procedure is to fly blindly into the face of all reasonable probability." Pg. 168, par. 4.
At this point I would like to repeat a paragraph from the first page.
Support for various modern versions "tend to form two cluster,. or camp,. and these camps differ substantially from each other. In very broad and over-simplified terms, one camp generally follows the large majority of the manuscripts (between 80 and 90 percent) which are in essential agreement among themselves but which do not date from before the fifth century. A.D., while the other generally follows a small handful (often less than 10) of the earlier manuscripts (from the third, fourth, and fifth centuries) which not only disagree with the majority, but also disagree among themselves. The second camp has been in general control of the scholarly world for" more than "the last 100 years." pg. 16, par. 2.
Bill B. Wagner 5-7-95
No comments:
Post a Comment