Texts of the bible:
The old testament of the bible was written in the languages of Hebrew and Aramaic. The new testament of the bible was written in Greek. We have copies of the bible in these original languages. These copies can be divided into groups based on differences they contain in certain verses.
On the whole, there are two groups of old testament documents. The differences between the two seem to be fairly minor, and pale in comparison to the differences between the groups of new testament documents.
The most useful division that I have run across for new testament documents is to break them down into three groups: the “Majority” text, the “Minority” text, and the “Received” text.
The “Majority” text, so named by Hodges and Farstad (1982) and Pierpont and Robinson (1991), is an oddly named group, because it contains of less than a majority of the total documents. It seems to be some sort of a hybrid between the other two groups, with some of the more controversial readings avoided. It looks like a somewhat arbitrary collection, and I am not sure how much adoption this particular group possessed in antiquity.
I will focus more “Minority” and “Received” texts, because I think that they are much more relevant.
The “Minority” text is just that. It is a very small amount of the total documents in antiquity. Up to around the turn of the 1900s, and maybe until about the middle of the 1900s, it was not in common usage. It represents a radical departure from the earlier Received text, and it took the passing of at least a couple of generations after significant attention was paid to it, before it became widely adopted.
It did, however, become widely adopted. So widely adopted that almost every single bible available in the English language is now based on it. I don’t think that I will be overstepping my bounds to estimate that is it taught in the majority of seminaries, bible colleges, and other institutions of Christian higher learning. Almost every commentary, every devotional, and every sermon you will run across will be using it. So, for that reason, if nothing else, I feel led to talk about it.
The two most important documents for the Minority text are the “Vatican” manuscript and the “Sinai” manuscript. The former is usually called Vaticanus and the latter Sinaiticus. They are both dated to around 350 A.D. Lets take a small look at each.
The Vatican manuscript was found the library of the Vatican.
The Sinai manuscript was found in the monastery of St. Catherine. It has been edited several times. It contains a note from a scribe after the book of Esther that it was based on manuscripts from Origin ( See: http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/sinaiticus.pdf ).
I will now spend a brief period of time talking about the Received Text. The Received text is the main bible text used during the reformation.
What is the importance? Why does it even matter if our bibles are translated from the Minority text or the Received text?
I have often run across statements that the differences between the two groups do not affect anything doctrinaly important. The whole thing becomes a lot more interesting when we start to compare some of the differences.
The minority text does not contain the longer ending of Mark. I have read attempts to try and justify Mark not including the encounters of Jesus when he has risen from the dead.
The minority text does not have the comment from Jesus that certain devils only come out by prayer AND “fasting”.
The minority text omits certain references to the blood of Jesus.
On the other hand the Received text contains the verse “God was manifested in the flesh.” 1 Timothy 3:16
It also contains “For there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7
I would make a bet that you have already seen several commentaries ridiculing that last verse. The popular statement is that it did not exist until somewhere around the 1400s.
At this point I would like to mention a couple of things that have made a big difference for me in this discussion. The early church father Irenaeus, who wrote in 177 A.D. in his work “Against Heresies”, quoted the longer ending of Mark. In fact he wrote that “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; ‘", which is a direct quote of Mark 16:19. This is the second to the last verse of the long ending of mark, thus it takes for granted that the verses between 9 and 18 are also present.
It is also interesting to note that both the Vatican and the Sinai manuscripts end the book of Mark with the words “and they were afraid.” I am not kidding. Does this sound like the way that the Lord wants to finish the gospel of Mark?
As I view it, the church is presented with about 3 options. First, Irenaeus didn’t actually write those words, and we have a corrupt copy of his writings. Second, Irenaeus was deceived, and he was quoting something not written by God when he quoted the longer ending mark. Third, Irenaeus was quoting the actual words written by Mark when quoted the longer ending. ( A fourth possibility is that Irenaeus forged the words himself. )
How do these options stack up? In regards to the second, Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, and Polycarp was a disciple of John the apostle. If Irenaeus was quoting a corrupt document as being authentic, then I believe that we ourselves, as being over 1700 years further from the original greek written by Mark, in general probably have a less chance of getting things right than he does. I think that either the first or the third option carries more weight.
If we contemplate the third, it leaves us in the position that the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts are both bad examples of the original text of the bible. It also tells us that, in this instance, the Received Text contains the true reading.
It is my experience that there seems to be a lot riding on the acceptance of the Minority Text. Without it, the deity of Christ is spelled out more clearly than many want to see. Without it, the trinity becomes a very solid doctrine. Without it, fasting becomes considerably more important to ministry. The longer ending of Mark mentions several things that will “follow” “those who believe on” Jesus. Not those who are apostles, not elders, not clergy, but simply those who believe on Jesus. These things include casting out devils in the name of Jesus, laying hands on the sick and seeing them recover, and speaking in new languages. Without the longer ending of Mark, no one has to deal with these things.
Now I want to mention another little known fact. Cyprian of Carthage, a bishop in North Africa around 250 A.D. says in his work “De catholicae ecclesiae unitate” that: “The Lord said, ‘I and the Father are one’, and likewise it written of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit ‘And these three are one.’"
Once again, we can doubt we possess Cyprian’s words. We can believe he forged the bible verses, or was using a copy of bible corrupted by someone else. The last option is to contemplate that Cyprian, a full 100 years before the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts ever existed, was quoting the words written by God himself about the trinity.
What difference does this verse make? How many believers have struggled with what to think about Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit? How many cults have sprung into existence because Christians could not adequately prove that Jesus was very God of very God. How many Jewish people could be reached by the truth that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit together are Jehovah, who is one. How many bible verses suddenly make sense with this perspective? How many truths about our Lord are revealed?
At the very least, I am totally surprised by the overall reaction of Christian scholarship to these issues. There does not seem to be any critical evaluation of what is popularly taught in academic circles. There does not seem to be any sort of discussion of these issues. In fact, I find more ridicule than honest reason in most of the sources I have read, and yes, I have seen the same thing on both sides of this issue.
A relatively small amount of research will uncover objections to the Minority Text simply based on quotations of early church fathers. How can Irenaeus and Cyprian quote verses before the 350 A.D. that supposedly did not exist until afterwards? Why is it that “these three are one” is paraded around as if it was invented in the 1400s when it is quoted before the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts were written? Why are these issues hidden from the church? Who has decided that the average Christian should not even examine evidence like this?
I urge everyone who reads this to pray about these issues. If the changes between the Minority Text and the Received Text do not change any doctrine, then why do people feel so strongly about this issue? If the changes between the two texts do have an influence on what you believe, then I believe that you should at least spend some amount of time to ask the Lord what He wants you know about these issues.
The only two major translations of the bible in English that follow the received text are the old King James Version (KJV) and the New King James Version (NKJV) bibles.
If you are interested, here are a couple of links that I find useful on this topic. The first is a discussion of why would anyone change the bible in the first few centuries AD:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180629204306/http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html
Also, here are two that I find useful because it has nice collected tables of the bible version differences. I don't necessarily endorse whatever doctrine is on this website.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/
Also, I am not a "King James Version only" person. I do not believe that the KJV is absolutely perfect. I can show you places where I disagree with how it was translated. I believe that the Greek bible is perfect, and a bible version is good as long as it is an accurate translation of the Greek.
The NJKV, however, usually contains footnotes explaining changes that the minority text makes. These footnotes are usually slanted in such a way to try to undermine the readings in the Received Text in favor of the minority text. So if you want to believe the received text in a modern bible, ignore the footnotes.
The old testament of the bible was written in the languages of Hebrew and Aramaic. The new testament of the bible was written in Greek. We have copies of the bible in these original languages. These copies can be divided into groups based on differences they contain in certain verses.
On the whole, there are two groups of old testament documents. The differences between the two seem to be fairly minor, and pale in comparison to the differences between the groups of new testament documents.
The most useful division that I have run across for new testament documents is to break them down into three groups: the “Majority” text, the “Minority” text, and the “Received” text.
The “Majority” text, so named by Hodges and Farstad (1982) and Pierpont and Robinson (1991), is an oddly named group, because it contains of less than a majority of the total documents. It seems to be some sort of a hybrid between the other two groups, with some of the more controversial readings avoided. It looks like a somewhat arbitrary collection, and I am not sure how much adoption this particular group possessed in antiquity.
I will focus more “Minority” and “Received” texts, because I think that they are much more relevant.
The “Minority” text is just that. It is a very small amount of the total documents in antiquity. Up to around the turn of the 1900s, and maybe until about the middle of the 1900s, it was not in common usage. It represents a radical departure from the earlier Received text, and it took the passing of at least a couple of generations after significant attention was paid to it, before it became widely adopted.
It did, however, become widely adopted. So widely adopted that almost every single bible available in the English language is now based on it. I don’t think that I will be overstepping my bounds to estimate that is it taught in the majority of seminaries, bible colleges, and other institutions of Christian higher learning. Almost every commentary, every devotional, and every sermon you will run across will be using it. So, for that reason, if nothing else, I feel led to talk about it.
The two most important documents for the Minority text are the “Vatican” manuscript and the “Sinai” manuscript. The former is usually called Vaticanus and the latter Sinaiticus. They are both dated to around 350 A.D. Lets take a small look at each.
The Vatican manuscript was found the library of the Vatican.
The Sinai manuscript was found in the monastery of St. Catherine. It has been edited several times. It contains a note from a scribe after the book of Esther that it was based on manuscripts from Origin ( See: http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/sinaiticus.pdf ).
I will now spend a brief period of time talking about the Received Text. The Received text is the main bible text used during the reformation.
What is the importance? Why does it even matter if our bibles are translated from the Minority text or the Received text?
I have often run across statements that the differences between the two groups do not affect anything doctrinaly important. The whole thing becomes a lot more interesting when we start to compare some of the differences.
The minority text does not contain the longer ending of Mark. I have read attempts to try and justify Mark not including the encounters of Jesus when he has risen from the dead.
The minority text does not have the comment from Jesus that certain devils only come out by prayer AND “fasting”.
The minority text omits certain references to the blood of Jesus.
On the other hand the Received text contains the verse “God was manifested in the flesh.” 1 Timothy 3:16
It also contains “For there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7
I would make a bet that you have already seen several commentaries ridiculing that last verse. The popular statement is that it did not exist until somewhere around the 1400s.
At this point I would like to mention a couple of things that have made a big difference for me in this discussion. The early church father Irenaeus, who wrote in 177 A.D. in his work “Against Heresies”, quoted the longer ending of Mark. In fact he wrote that “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; ‘", which is a direct quote of Mark 16:19. This is the second to the last verse of the long ending of mark, thus it takes for granted that the verses between 9 and 18 are also present.
It is also interesting to note that both the Vatican and the Sinai manuscripts end the book of Mark with the words “and they were afraid.” I am not kidding. Does this sound like the way that the Lord wants to finish the gospel of Mark?
As I view it, the church is presented with about 3 options. First, Irenaeus didn’t actually write those words, and we have a corrupt copy of his writings. Second, Irenaeus was deceived, and he was quoting something not written by God when he quoted the longer ending mark. Third, Irenaeus was quoting the actual words written by Mark when quoted the longer ending. ( A fourth possibility is that Irenaeus forged the words himself. )
How do these options stack up? In regards to the second, Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, and Polycarp was a disciple of John the apostle. If Irenaeus was quoting a corrupt document as being authentic, then I believe that we ourselves, as being over 1700 years further from the original greek written by Mark, in general probably have a less chance of getting things right than he does. I think that either the first or the third option carries more weight.
If we contemplate the third, it leaves us in the position that the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts are both bad examples of the original text of the bible. It also tells us that, in this instance, the Received Text contains the true reading.
It is my experience that there seems to be a lot riding on the acceptance of the Minority Text. Without it, the deity of Christ is spelled out more clearly than many want to see. Without it, the trinity becomes a very solid doctrine. Without it, fasting becomes considerably more important to ministry. The longer ending of Mark mentions several things that will “follow” “those who believe on” Jesus. Not those who are apostles, not elders, not clergy, but simply those who believe on Jesus. These things include casting out devils in the name of Jesus, laying hands on the sick and seeing them recover, and speaking in new languages. Without the longer ending of Mark, no one has to deal with these things.
Now I want to mention another little known fact. Cyprian of Carthage, a bishop in North Africa around 250 A.D. says in his work “De catholicae ecclesiae unitate” that: “The Lord said, ‘I and the Father are one’, and likewise it written of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit ‘And these three are one.’"
Once again, we can doubt we possess Cyprian’s words. We can believe he forged the bible verses, or was using a copy of bible corrupted by someone else. The last option is to contemplate that Cyprian, a full 100 years before the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts ever existed, was quoting the words written by God himself about the trinity.
What difference does this verse make? How many believers have struggled with what to think about Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit? How many cults have sprung into existence because Christians could not adequately prove that Jesus was very God of very God. How many Jewish people could be reached by the truth that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit together are Jehovah, who is one. How many bible verses suddenly make sense with this perspective? How many truths about our Lord are revealed?
At the very least, I am totally surprised by the overall reaction of Christian scholarship to these issues. There does not seem to be any critical evaluation of what is popularly taught in academic circles. There does not seem to be any sort of discussion of these issues. In fact, I find more ridicule than honest reason in most of the sources I have read, and yes, I have seen the same thing on both sides of this issue.
A relatively small amount of research will uncover objections to the Minority Text simply based on quotations of early church fathers. How can Irenaeus and Cyprian quote verses before the 350 A.D. that supposedly did not exist until afterwards? Why is it that “these three are one” is paraded around as if it was invented in the 1400s when it is quoted before the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts were written? Why are these issues hidden from the church? Who has decided that the average Christian should not even examine evidence like this?
I urge everyone who reads this to pray about these issues. If the changes between the Minority Text and the Received Text do not change any doctrine, then why do people feel so strongly about this issue? If the changes between the two texts do have an influence on what you believe, then I believe that you should at least spend some amount of time to ask the Lord what He wants you know about these issues.
The only two major translations of the bible in English that follow the received text are the old King James Version (KJV) and the New King James Version (NKJV) bibles.
If you are interested, here are a couple of links that I find useful on this topic. The first is a discussion of why would anyone change the bible in the first few centuries AD:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180629204306/http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html
Also, here are two that I find useful because it has nice collected tables of the bible version differences. I don't necessarily endorse whatever doctrine is on this website.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/
Also, I am not a "King James Version only" person. I do not believe that the KJV is absolutely perfect. I can show you places where I disagree with how it was translated. I believe that the Greek bible is perfect, and a bible version is good as long as it is an accurate translation of the Greek.
The NJKV, however, usually contains footnotes explaining changes that the minority text makes. These footnotes are usually slanted in such a way to try to undermine the readings in the Received Text in favor of the minority text. So if you want to believe the received text in a modern bible, ignore the footnotes.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.