1 Sunday, February 24, 2019 Grace Life Schl f Thelgy Frm This Generatin Fr Ever Lessn 78 Textual Variants and Crruptin: Defining Our Terms, Part 2 Intrductin Last week in Lessn 77 we began a cnsideratin f the furth and final preliminary tpic identified in Lessn 73 the issue f Textual Variants and Crruptin. In rder t accmplish this task, we lked at the fllwing three pints: Existence & Definitin f Textual Variants A textual variant is any place amng the MSS in which there is variatin in wrding, including wrd rder, missin r additin f wrds, even spelling differences. The mst trivial changes cunt, and even when all the manuscripts except ne say ne thing, that lne MS s reading cunts as a textual variant. (Wallace, 26) There are mre variants in the MSS (400,000 t 500,000) than there are wrds in the New Testament (140,000). There are a lt f variants because there are a lt f MSS. Text critics like t talk abut accidental and intentinal changes t the text. Given the fact that assigning mtive t textual variants is highly subjective, I believe we are better suited by just understanding the types f variants that scribes created when cpying their texts. Causes f Variant Readings 1) Faulty Eyesight, 2) Hmeteleutn (caused by similar ending lines), 3) Impaired Hearing, 4) Impaired Memry, 5) Harmnizatin, and 6) Cnflatin. These are plausible general causes f variant readings. Any attempt t explain a particular variant with a specific cause frm the abve list is speculative. N ne knws fr sure the exact cause that gave rise t a particular variant reading. Therefre, I am skeptical f hw text critics use harmnizatin and cnflatin t argue against the majrity witness f the Byzantine text-type. Mrever, f all the causes listed fr variant readings, harmnizatin and cnflatin imply the highest degree f intentinality by scribes cpying the text. Pastr Bryan Rss
2 Types f Variants Accrding t Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, variants can be brken dwn int the fllwing fur categries: 1) spelling differences and nnsense errrs, 2) minr differences that d nt affect translatin r that invlve synnyms, 3) differences that affect the meaning f the text but are nt viable, and 4) differences that bth affect the meaning f the text and are viable (Wallace, 40) Less then ne percent f textual variants belng t the furth categry mentined abve, accrding t leading textual critics. Yet, this ne percent includes...hundreds f passages whse interpretatin depends, t sme degree, n which reading is fllwed... (Wallace, 43) Evangelical text critics such as James R. White and Daniel B. Wallace cnfidently infrm their readers that n textual variants in either the Old r New Testaments in any way, shape, r frm materially disrupt r destry any essential dctrine f the Christian faith. (White, 40) Frmer Evangelical Bart D. Ehrman disagrees, It wuld be wrng, hwever, t say as peple smetimes d that the changes in ur texts have n real bearing n what the texts mean r n the thelgical cnclusins that ne draws frm them. (Ehrman, 207) Time did nt permit us an pprtunity t talk abut ur furth pint last week which was Textual Crruptin: What Is It? Our main bjective tday in Lessn 78 is t discuss this imprtant pint. If time permits, we will als lk mre deeply int the questin f ; d any f the variant readings impact any essential dctrine f the Christian faith as Wallace and White has asserted. Textual Crruptin: What Is It? Recall frm ur study in Lessn 54 that we cnsidered the simultaneus nature f preservatin and crruptin i.e., the ntin that bth prcesses were ccurring at the same time as the text was being transmitted. When discussing the tpics f preservatin and transmissin, ne must clearly identify what they mean by wrds such as perfect, pure, errr, and crruptin. Mst f the time cmmentatrs n bth sides f the textual and/r translatin debate use the assumptin f verbatim identicality f wrding when discussing these matters (see the qute frm James R. White abve). Cnsider the fllwing statements made by Dr. William W. Cmbs f Detrit Baptist Thelgical Seminary as a case in pint: Hw pure have the riginal wrds f the biblical writings been preserved? It is an indisputable fact, prven by the manuscripts and versinal evidence, that Gd has nt Pastr Bryan Rss
3 perfectly (that is, withut errr) preserved the Scriptures thrughut their lng histry f transmissin. There is n single manuscript, printed text, r versin that can be shwn t be errr free. This is patently bvius t anyne wh is at all familiar with the transmissin histry f the Scriptures. First, we shuld nte that n tw Greek manuscripts f the New Testament agree exactly; these thusands f manuscripts all differ frm ne anther t sme degree. N ne has ever suggested, even within the KJV/TR camp, that a particular ne f these manuscripts is a perfect cpy f the autgraphs that it is errr free. This cnclusively demnstrates that Gd has permitted errrs t enter the transmissin prcess, which is the inevitable result f prvidential preservatin. (Cmbs, 49-50) Mark well that fr Dr. Cmbs an errr cnstitutes a textual variant f any kind. In this way he is assuming verbatim identicality as the standard fr preservatin/transmissin. Dr. Bart D. Ehrman authr f The Orthdx Crruptin f Scriptures agrees with Dr. Cmbs regarding hw textual criticism has traditinally defined wrds like errrs and/r crruptins when discussing the transmissin f the text. The term crruptin derives frm the traditinal text-critical discurse, in which the riginal text (i.e., as it was actually penned by an authr) is the dminant cncern, with changes f that text whether accidental r intentinal representing cntaminatins f that riginal. (Ehrman, 33) Accrding t Dr. Ehrman, mst schlars view any change t the text, regardless f the srt r mtivatin, as a crruptin. That being said, it is imperative t understand that Dr. Ehrman s definitin f a textual crruptin far utstrips the cmmn text-critical usage f the wrd utlined abve. All f us interpret ur texts and ascribe meaning t them and, in that sense, we rewrite them (i.e., we explain them t urselves in ur wn wrds ). The scribes, smewhat mre literally, actually did rewrite them. And nt infrequently it was precisely their understanding f these texts that led them t rewrite them nt nly in their wn minds, which all f us d, but actually n the page. When we rewrite a text in ur minds s as t cnstrue its meaning, we interpret the text; when a scribe rewrites a text n the page (i.e., mdifies its wrds t help fix its meaning) he physically alters the text. On the ne hand, then, this scribal activity is very much like what all f us d every time we read a text; n the ther hand, by taking this business f rewriting a text t its lgical end, scribes have dne smething very different frm what we d. Frm the standpint f psterity, they have actually transfrmed the text, s that the text hencefrth read is quite literally a different text. Only frm this histrical perspective can ne apply the standard textcritical nmenclature t this scribal activity and call it the crruptin f a text. Pastr Bryan Rss
4 I am therefre cnsciusly emplying irny in my dentatin f the rthdx crruptins f Scripture. On the ne hand, I am using the term in its technical text-critical sense f alteratins f a text; at the same time, I am using it t refer t the effect f rereading r rewriting f text in the histry f their transmissin, claiming nt that scribes misunderstd their texts and perverted them (as if crruptin were necessarily pejrative), but that in their transmissins f the text they engaged in much the same prcess f interpretatin and interactin that we all engage in, rereading and therefre rewriting ur texts at every turn. (Ehrman, 35-36) Mark well, that there are tw cmpnents t rthdx crruptin accrding t Ehrman s analysis: 1) an alteratin f the text that transfrms and 2) rewrites f the dctrinal cntent f the text. Put anther way, it is nt just that the text has been altered, it is the way it has been altered that causes a prblem, accrding t Ehrman. While Ehrman sees rthdx believers as making these textual alteratins fr dctrinal reasns i.e., t strengthen Christlgical views, his explanatin culd als apply in reverse as an explicatin fr hw and why heretics altered the text. Is it nt just as likely that heretical scribes culd have altered the text in key places t weaken the dctrine f Christ? I believe the latter rather than the frmer. The scriptures warn against thse wh wuld seek t intentinally alter the biblical text fr nefarius purpses. The fllwing Pauline texts established that a culture f crruptin with respect t the scriptures existed during the first century while the New Testament was being written. This culture f crruptin includes the fllwing minimum cmpnents: Crrupting the wrd f Gd (II Crinthians 2:17) Frging the wrd f Gd (II Thessalnians 2:2) Handling the wrd f Gd deceitfully (II Crinthians 4:2) Any means strategy (II Crinthians 11:1-4) Please nte that all these cmpnents f crruptin imply intentinality n the part f the crruptr. Once again, thse hlding t unsund dctrine wuld have ample mtivatin fr tampering with the text s as t hide the heretical nature f their teaching. There are many reasns why men wuld desire t change Gd s wrds. In many cases, the changes are affected as a result f a desire t adhere t sme false teaching. Since the scriptures cndemn their heresies, sme g s far as t change the scriptures in rder that the heresies can g undiscvered. (Taylr, 52) Pastr Bryan Rss
5 The scriptures anticipate this situatin by issuing three strategically placed warnings against tampering with the wrd f Gd. Deuternmy 4:1-2 Prverbs 30:5-6 Revelatin 22:18-19 I believe that substantive alteratins wuld nt have been made by Bible believing peple wh were seeking t faithfully cpy and transmit Gd s wrd. The believing viewpint is that, while the faithful were nt kept whlly frm variance in the cpying f the scriptures, they wuld nt have sught t intentinally alter the substantive dctrinal cntent f the text and thereby crrupt Gd s wrd. T behave in such a manner wuld have been a vilatin f the precepts f the very text they were endeavring t transmit. Kent Brandenburg editr f Thu Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Thelgy f the Perfect Preservatin f Scripture states the fllwing in his essay titled First Century Textual Attack: Pure manuscripts and readings were embraced while thers were rejected [This was ne f the functins f the New Testament prphet in the early church.]. This behavir stemmed frm authritative warnings cncerning tampering with Scripture. The Bible establishes clearly that there were crruptins f first century manuscripts by means f purpseful textual attack... (Brandenburg in Thu Shalt Keep Them, 132) When ne Biblically amends their psitin n preservatin (See Lessns 42, 43, 74, 75, and 76) and thereby realizes that preservatin did nt ccur with verbatim identicality, it brings the entire discussin n the extent f preservatin and transmissin int fcus. On this amended view, an errr r crruptin wuld cnstitute a variant that substantively alters the dctrinal cntent f the Biblical text. Variants that cnstitute a different way f saying the same thing r d nt substantively alter the dctrine f the Bible (which wuld be the vast majrity accrding t the leading schlars in the field) are nt errrs because they are substantively equivalent. Pastr Bryan Rss
6 Wrks Cited Brandenburg, Kent. First Century Textual Attack in Thu Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Thelgy f the Perfect Preservatin f Scripture. El Sbrante, CA: Pillar & Grund Publishing, 2003. Cmbs, William W. The Preservatin f Scripture? in Detrit Baptist Seminary Jurnal. Fall 2000. Ehrman, Bart D. Misquting Jesus: The Stry Behind Wh Changed the Bible and Why. New Yrk, NY: HarperCllins, 2005. Ehrman, Bart D. The Orthdx Crruptin f Scripture: The Effect f Christlgical Cntrversies n the Text f the New Testament. Oxfrd, GB: Oxfrd University Press, 2011. Taylr, Jim. In Defense f the Textus Receptus. Cleveland, GA: Old Path Publicatins, 2016. Wallace, Daniel B. Revisiting the Crruptin f the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apcryphal Evidence. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publicatins, 2011. White, James R. The King James Only Cntrversy: Can Yu Trust Mdern Translatins?. Bethany Huse Publishers: Minneaplis, MN: 1995. Pastr Bryan Rss