MODERN VERSIONS AND 19th CENTURY CRITICS By J. Ecob 12 Ningoola Way Orange N.S.W. 2800 Australia Thy WORD is true from the beginning: and every one of Thy righteous Judgments endureth for ever. -- Ps. 119:160 As the number of NEW VERSIONS of the Bible continue to multiply, the situation becomes increasingly confused for many of the Lords people. The differences between these paraphrases and translations indicate that they cant all be correct! At least some, perhaps most, must be in considerable error, that is, IF EVERY WORD of the DIVINE ORIGINAL was given INFALLIBLY. Since the Bible itself claims VERBAL (WORD) INSPIRATION,. (See The Divine Inspiration of the Bible, W.E. Vine, M.A.) the issue becomes a serious one and one which effects the very foundation upon which all truth stands, - the WORD OF GOD! Dare anyone ADD TO, or TAKE FROM THE WORDS OF GOD!! This is not the right of any human or celestial being. Not even scholars in the field of translation and textual criticism are exempted, to tamper with the WORD OF GOD which LIVETH AND ABIDETH FOR EVER I Peter 1:23. To those who dare, God shall add the plagues that are written in the Word of God or take away their part out of the BOOK OF LIFE in heaven! Revelation 22:18, 19. SOURCES OF ERROR Two main sourues of error are evident in the large number of versions flooding the religious book market today. Some versions are influenced by one of these factors, some by a combination of both. They are: 1.The Theological Position of the Translators. It is obvious that modernist, liberal, or anti-christian (e.g. a Jewish Rabbi, Harry M. Orlinsky of the jewish Institute of Religion, N.Y., who was on the committee for the R.S.V.) will produce a different translation to that produced by a translator who believes that every word is God-breathed and infallible. When C.H. Dodd, Chairman of N.E.B. Translation Committee, tells us that MOSES HAS LEFT US NO WRITINGS, AND WE KNOW LITTLE OF HIM WITH CERTAINTY, (The Authority of the Bible, Page 27) we cant have much confidence in the N.E.B. version of the first five (5) books of the Bible, which were written by Moses. The Lord Jesus said HAD YE BELIEVED MOSES YE WOULD HAVE BELIEVED ME: FOR HE WROTE OF ME! John. 5:46,. 2.The Greek Text which was used by the Translators: There are basically two (2) Greek Texts from which a translator of the New Testament may work. The RECEIVED TEXT or the WESTCOT AND HORT TEXT (or its derivatives, e.g. Revised Version Text 1881, Nestles). ALL GREEK TEXTS FALL INTO THESE TWO MAIN GROUPS, and all scholars will agree on this basic fact of textual criticism. When we remember that the Greek Text of the Revised Version 1881, varies from the Received Text in 5788 places (according to Dr. Scrivener) we can immediately see that what Westcott and Hort achieved on the Committee of the R.S.V. (with majority support against Dr. Scrivener) was not merely a better translation of the same Bible (A.V.) but a translation of A DIFFERENT BIBLE. THE CASE SIMPLY STATED The New Testament came to us by hand written copies from the apostolic times down till 1516 A.D. when the first PRINTED Greek Text was published by Erasmus. Many scholars of note worked on the manuscripts and printed texts were produced which were in SUBSTANTIAL AGREEMENT with each Other, and in agreement with the vast majority of manuscripts, UNTIL THE 19TH CENTURY. In the 19th Century, along with the tide of rationalism which swept the Christian wodd, a number of scholars arose with a DIFFERENT THEORY AS TO HOW THE TRUE TEXT WAS TO BE DECIDED. For 350 years it was held that the TRUE TEXT was represented in the vast majority (90%) of the extant manuscripts. The few manuscripts which differed substantially were put aside in view of the number of witnesses against them AND the large amount of disagreements among them (e.g. Codex Bezae D was not used by Beza whose 1588 and 1598 A.D. editions were the chief foundation of the Authorised Version (1611 A.D.) (Schaffs Companion page 501 ). Since 1611, thousands of manuscripts (actually the total is now 5,000+ including lectionaries, papyrii, etc.) have been found and the proportion of manuscripts has not changed! STILL 90% OF ALL MANUSCRIPTS AGREE WITH THE RECEIVED TEXT!! Dean Burgon, an outstanding manuscript authority, avers that he is thoroughly convinced that no reading can be of real importance -- I mean has a chance of being true -- which is witnessed to exclusively by a very few copies, whether uncial or cursive .... Nothing else are such extraordinary readings, wherever they may happen to be found, but fragments of primitive error, repudiated by the Church (a witness and keeper of Holy writ) in her corporate capacity, (Letter in the Guardian, July 12, 1882). Dr. Scrivener states: In the second century we have seen too many instances of attempts to tamper with the text of Scripture, some merely injudicious, others positively dishonest; but all this was over long before the scribes of the fourth and fifth centuries began their happy task, AS SIMPLE AND HONEST COPYISTS OF THE OLDER RECORDS PLACED BEFORE THEM. Let their testimony be received with attention at all times, let it be accepted as conclusive whensoever there are no grave reasons to the contrary, but let not their paramount authority shut out all other considerations, external and internal, which might guide us to the true reading of a passage; NOR LET US BE SO ILLOGICAL AS TO CONCLUDE, BECAUSE ALEPH AND B ARE SOMETIMES RIGHT, THAT THEREFORE THEY NEVER ARE IN THE WRONG. (Aleph Sinaiticus, and B, Vaticanus, are two of the oldest surviving manuscripts and have been used by some 19th Century critics as sufficient to overthrow all other manuscript testimony.) The question before us is simply Do we accept the discordent testimony of a very few ancient documents or do we accept the concordant testimony of the great majority of manuscripts. Evidence is given in another leaflet Modern Versions and Ancient Versions to show the untrustworthiness of the few most Ancient manuscripts. THE 19TH CENTURY THEORY Five (5) prominent scholars of the 19th Century put forward a new theory to determine which Greek Text was the TRUE TEXT. These men were Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort. (Professor Nestle, in compiling his Greek Text simply took the texts printed by Westcott and Hort, Tischendort and Weiss, and where two of these agreed against the other, then their reading was accepted.) All of these men had a common basis for their theory. THEY ALL ACCEPTED THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE OLDEST SURVIVING MANUSCRIPT MUST BE THE BEST! When the New Testament Greek student looks at his Greek Text he will notice the comment of these scholars at the foot of each page. The question is simply what value can we place on such alternative renderings? If these scholars have more accurately assessed the true text then we shall be glad to accept the fruit of their labours. But, sad to say, all of these scholars without exception, have based their texts on a wrong assumption which can lead only to wrong conclusions. We will now look at the assumptions which guided these 19th Century scholars in their determination of their Greek Text. LACHMANN 1831 - 1850 When the second of Lachmanns three editions of the N.T, Text was printed -- It was then seen, how clean a sweep he had made of the great majedty of Greek Manuscripts usually cited by critical editions:- In fact he rejects all in a heap excepting codices A, B, C; the fragments P, Q, J, Z (and for some purposes D) of be Gospels; D, E of the Acts only; D, G, H of St. Paul. It seems then, to have been Lachmanns purpose, discarding the slightest regard for the textus receptus as such to endeavour to bring the Sacred text back to the condition in which it existed during the fourth century, and this in the first instance by documentary aid alone, without regarding for the moment whether the sense produced were probable or improbable, good or bad; BUT L00KING SOLELY TO HIS AUTHORITIES, AND FOLLOWING THEM IMPLICITLY WHERESOEVER THE NUMERICAL MAJORITY OF A FEW ANCIENT AUTHORITIES MIGHT CARRY HIM. For accomplishing this purpose he possessed but one Greek copy written as early as the fourth century, Cod. B; and of that he not only knew less than has since come to light (and even this is not quite sufficient), but he did not avail himself of Bartoloccis papers on Cod. B, to which Scholz had already drawn attention. His other codices were not of the fourth century at all, but varying in date from the fifth (ACT) to the ninth (G); and of these few (of C more especially) his assistant or colleague Buttmanns representation was loose, careless, and unsatisfactory. (Scriveners Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament Vol. I I, page 232). The consequence of this voluntary poverty where our manuscript treasures are so abundant, of this deliberate rejection of the testimony of many hundreds of documents, of various countries, dates and characters, may be told in a few words. LACHMANNS TEXT SELDOM RESTS ON MORE THAN FOUR GREEK CODICES, VERY OFTEN ON THREE, NOT INFREQUENTLY ON TWO; in Matt. vi. 20 - viii. 5, and in 165 out of 405 verses of the Apocalypse, on but one. It would have been a grevious thing indeed if we really had no better means of ascertaining the true readings of the New Testament than are contained in this editors scanty roll; AND HE WHO, FOR THE SAKE OF SOME PRIVATE THEORY, SHALL PRESUME TO SHUT OUT FROM HIS MIND THE GREAT MASS OF INFORMATION GODS PROVIDENCE HAS PRESERVED FOR OUR USE, WILL HARDLY BE THOUGHT TO HAVE CHOSEN THE MOST HOPEFUL METHOD FOR BRINGING HIMSELF OR OTHERS TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH. (Scrivener, Vol. II, page 233). TISCHENDORF 1840 - 1872 Tischendorf who discovered the Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) in 1844 at the Convent .of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai, became so mesmerised by this discovery that he allowed this one manuscript to over-rule all other manuscripts. The results of this EXCESSIVE AND IRRATIONAL DEFERENCE TO ONE OF OUR CHIEF CODICES, that which he was so fortunate as to bring to the light, appears plainly in Tischendorfs eighth edition of the New Testament. That great critic had never been conspicuous for stability of judgment. His THIRD edition was constructed almost WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS (the vast majority) which, unless .they be what no one asserts or imagines, merely corrupt copies, or copies of copies, of existing uncials, must needs be the REPRESENTATIVES OF YET OLDER CODICES which have long since perished: respectable ancestors (as one has quaintly put the matter) who live only in their descendants. In Tischendorfs seventh edition, completed in 1859, that error was rectified, and the sum of textual variations between the third and seventh edition in consequence amounted to 1296, in no less than 595 of which (430 of the remainder being more matters of spelling) he returned to the readings of the Received Text, which he had before deserted, but to which fresh materials and larger experience had brought him back. In the eighth edition another disturbing element is introduced, and that edition differs from his seventh in as many as 3369 places, to the scandal of tbe science of Comparative Criticism, as well as to his own grave discredit for discernment and consistency. THE EVIDENCE OF COD. ALEPH, SUPPORTED OR EVEN UNSUPPORTED BY ONE OR TWO AUTHORITIES OF ANY DESCRIPTION, PROVED WITH HIM SUFFICIENT TO OUTWEIGH ALL OTHER WITNESSES, WHETHER MANUSCRIPTS, VERSIONS, OR ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS. (Scrivener, Vol. II, pages 282, 283) Ttschendorf dearly rejected the testirnony of the majority of manuscripts in favour of a FEW diverse manuscripts as the following quote will show this text (the Received Text) differs in many pieces from the oldest auffiorities of the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries, and, therefore, must be replaced by a text which is really drawn from the oldest sources discoverable. THE DIFFICULTY OF FINDING SUCH A TEXT LIES IN THIS THAT THERE IS A GREAT DIVERSITY AMONG THESE TEXTS; we have, therefore, to compare them closely together and decide on certain points of superiority on which to PREFER ONE TEXT TO ANOTHER. (Codex Sinaiticus by. Dr. C. Tischendorf, page 85). First we are told that the true text can only be found in the oldest manuscripts and then, that the OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT AGREE WITH EACH OTHER! TREGELLES 1857 - 1872 The peculiarity of Tregelles system is intimated, rather than stated, in the title page of his Greek N.T. It consists in resorting to ancient authorities alone In the construction of his revised text, and in refusing not only to the Received Text, but to the great mass of manuscripts also, all voice in determining the true readings. Dr. Scrivener states that: Tregelles scheme, although it was apparently devised independently of Lachmann, is in fact essentially that scholars plan, after those parts of it are withdrawn which are manifestly indefensible. Tregelles ancient authorities are thus reduced to those manuscripts which, not being Lectionaries, happen to be written in uncial characters, with the remarkable exceptions of Codices 1, 33, 69 of the Gospels, 61 of the Acts, which he admits because they preserve an ancient text. This truly eminent person, born at Falmouth of a Quaker family January 30, 1813, received what education he ever got at Falmouth Classical School from 1825 to 1828. At an early ago he lift the communion in which he was bred, to join a body called the Plymouth Brethren, among whom he met with disquietude and some mild persecution: his last years were more happily spent as a humble lay member of the Church of England, a fact he very earnestly begged to keep in mind. The critical studies he took up as early as 1838, when he was only twenty-five years old, were the main occupation of his life. The inconvenient and costly form in which he published his Greek New Testament, brought upon him pecuniary loss, and even trenched upon the moderate fortune of his true and loving wife: After several years of deep retirement he died at Plymouth, April 24, 1875: and whereas his widow, who has since followed him to the other world, was anxious that his great work should be as far as possible completed. Dr. Hort has manifested his veneration for an honoured memory, by publishing in 1879, an Appendix to the Greek New Testament, embracing what materials for Prolegomena Tregelles published writings supplied. (Compartive Criticism Vol. II, pages 240, 241 ). Benjamin Wills Newton who was a personal fdend of Tregelles states His (Tregelles) object was to edit a Text founded on ANCIENT EVIDENCE, WHATSOEVER THAT EVIDENCE MIGHT BE... The Text, therefore, of Dr. Tregelles is not presented by him as final, much less as authoritative. It is not presented as a Text which he himself would in all its parts accept. IT IS SIMPLY A TEXT, BASED ON SUCH ANCIENT AUTHORITIES AS WERE ACCESSIBLE TO HIM. (Remarks on the Revised English Version pages 176, 177). Dr. Tregelles own words are The reader is requested to observe that in the places where he may not accept my results as the Text adopted, he is furnished with all the ANCIENT EVIDENCE against my conclusions as well as for them. It is therefore evident that Tregelles did abandon the vast majority of the manuscripts in favour of a few ancient manuscripts. WESTCOTT AND HORT Since these scholars gathered up the researches of Lachmann, Tischendoff, and Tregelles, and were members of the Committee which produced the Revised Version Text and Translation (1881), and since the Nestles Text of the New Testament, (widely used today) is a combination of the Texts by Westcott and Herr, Tischendorf and Weiss, -- it is obvious that THESE MEN HAVE GIVEN MORE IMPETUS TO THE GREEK TEXT UNDERLYING MODERN VERSIONS THAN ANY OTHER SCHOLARS! We will therefore look in greater detail at the assumptions upon which Westcott and Hort Greek Text is based: Dr. Scrivener states: This important and comprehensive work, the joint labour of two of the best scholars of this age, toiling, now separately, now in counsel, for five and twenty years, was published, the text a few days earlier than the revised English Version (May 17, 1881), the Introduction about four months later. The text, or one a/most identical with it, had been submiffed to the Revisers of the N. T., and to a few other Biblical students, several years before, so that the general tenor and spirit of our authors judgment was known to many. DRS. WESTCOTT AND HORT DEPART MORE WIDELY FROM THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS THAN ANY PREVIOUS EDITOR HAD THOUGHT NECESSARY. (Comparative Criticism, Vol. II, page 242) And again: The germ of this (Westcott and Hort) theory can be traced in the speculations of Bentley and Griesbach, its authors would confess themselves on many points, disciples of Lachmann, although their process of investigation is far more artificial than his. But there is little hope for the viability of their imposing structure, if ITS FOUNDATIONS HAVE BEEN BID ON THE SANDY GROUND OF INGENIOUS CONJECTURE: AND SINCE BAREL Y THE SMALLEST VESTIGE OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE has ever been alleged in support of the views of these accomplished editors, their teaching must either be received as intuitively true, or dismissed from our consideration as PRECARIOUS, AND EVEN VISIONARY. (Comparative Criticism, Vol. II, page 285). An examination of the Preface of Westcott and Horts own Greek Text (1903 edition) will show that: 1.Westcott and Hort were inconsistent in their own theory; 2.They are lacking in historical evidence in support of their theory; 3.They are forced to acknowledge the antiquity of the Received Text as equaJ with their own almost sole authority, Codex Vaticanus (B); 4.Their ancient type of text can usually only be found in fragments (with exception of Aleph and B), and not in the main body of manuscripts. According to Westcott and Hort the vast majority of decuments (manuscripts) must be treated of NO PRIMARY AUTHORITY in ordinary variations! (Page 547) The system adopted by these scholars begins by rejecting the VAST MAJORITY OF MANUSCRIPTS! Yet at the same time admitting that the only safe critiosm is that which throughout takes account of all existing evidence (Page 561). What Westcott and Hort meant by all though is really only 5% to 10% of the manuscripts, since on page 554 they state that the vast majority of manuscripts termed Syrian or Post Syrian -- MAYBE SAFELY REJECTED AT ONCE! While acknowledging the basic principles of sound textual criticism (i.e. that true text can only be found in ALL the manuscripts), they immediately disqualify all of the manuscripts known as Byzantine or in their nomenclature Syrian, as well as most of the remaining manuscripts with the exception of Aleph and B. Westcott and Hort have built their theory on the basis that the most ancient manuscripts were the purest, that the later the date, the greater the chance of curruption. However, they admit that the greatest corruption of the text took place BEFORE the end of the 4th Century, as the following quote on page 548 will show:- Comparison with patristic quotations (by early church fathers), discloses at once the striking fact that all the more considerable variations of reading must have arisen BEFORE the latter half of the 4th Century. VARIATIONS OF LATER ORIGIN ARE FOR THE MOST PART OF LITTLE MOMENT and fhe changes which took place after that period were mainly changes in the distribution of readings already existing. A text virtually identical with the prevalent Greek Text of the Middle Ages was used by Chrysostom and other Antiochian Fathers in the latter part of the 4th Century, and thus must have been represented by manuscripts, AS OLD AS ANY MANUSCRIPT NOW SURVIVING. Again, on page 555 we read: ... the most important divergences of text took place in Pre-Syrian (before the 4th Century) times. On the one hand we are told that only the most ancient extant manuscripts are to be trusted and on the other hand we are told that the most ancient manuscript era was the era of greatest corruption! In practice Westcett and Hort followed the Codices B and Aleph of the 4th Century almost exclusively as we shall see later. This ancient but corrupted text is supported by only a FEW fragments! Quote... the ancient types of text are seldom to be discerned EXCEPT IN FRAGMENTS INTERMINGLED WITH OTHER TEXTS. (Page 552) Westcott and Hort had no conception of the PROVIDENTIAL PRESERVATION OF THE WORD OF GOD! The fact that the LORD JESUS CHRIST promised my words shall not pass away-- had no place in their thinking. THE OUTLINE OF WESTCOTT AND HORTS THEORY In their effort to decide which manuscripts contain the True Text, they follow clear steps in their reasoning. Quote: What has to be noted, is, first, the presence Or absence of distinctively Pre-Syrian readings; and secondly among Pre-Syrian reading, the presence or absence of distinctively Western, or distinctively Alexandrian, or distinctively Neutral readings. Page 553. i.e. Their first step is to identify the family to which each manuscript may belong. The title Syrian arose from the fanciful theory that about the 4th Century some scholars must have got together and produced a revision of the Greek Text. This they think, must have taken place in Syria, possibly Antioch and was later taken to Constantinopale, where it was adopted by the Greek Church. The whole theory Is completely devoid of any historical foundation. It is a figment of their own imaginationl Church history clearly records such details as: 1. Origens (185 to 254 A.D.) Hexapla, which provided six columns containing the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament plus five (5) Greek translations. (Milner, page 110) 2. Aquila (early 2nd Century) was a kinsman of the Emperor of Rome who professed conversion, but was put out of the church at Jerusalem because he practiced magic -- incensed, he apostatized to Judaism and translated the Old Testament into Greek. (Milner, page 65) Origen included this translation in his Hexapla! 3. Marcion the heretic, compiled a bible in the 2nd Century in Which -he rejected the whole Old Testament and mutilated the New. (Milner, page 75) 4. Eusebius in the 4th Century, prepared 50 copies of the scriptures for Emperor Constantine and Constantines letter has been preserved. 5. Jerome was asked by Pope Damasus (382 A.D.) to prepare a Latin Translation. If church historians so carefully record these events HOW DID THEY MISS THE GREATEST RECENSION OF ALL TIME? -- IF IT EVER TOOK PLACE!
Posted on: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 20:43:33 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015