-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Nick01,
Your post is well reasoned; but, IMO does not address my 2 primary points of concern.
1) Sinaticus and Vaticanus, while presumed older, are both Alexandrian.
2 The Alexandrian church was known to practice allegorical interpretation; and the Alexandrian ECF are known for taking liberties with the Word of God to the point that many are considered heretical by sound scholarship.
Those codices which are complete or nearly complete from the Syriac, Coptic, and Byzantine churches all include the disputed verses. These manuscripts come from geographically diverse areas all of which practiced literal interpretation.
A geographically isolated deletion by a church that practices allegorical interpretation seems more likely to me than geographically diverse additions, all in agreement, by churches that practice literal interpretation.
Who is more likely to alter God's Word?:
1) deletions by two transcribers from one city that believes that the Bible generally doesn't really mean what it says
2) additions by seventeen transcribers from 3 locations that believe that the Bible means exactly what it says with a few obvious exceptions.
My premise is that the former option is more likely regardless of the age of the documents!
my two concerns: Geographic isolation vs diversity & allegorical vs literal interpretation
Your post is well reasoned; but, IMO does not address my 2 primary points of concern.
1) Sinaticus and Vaticanus, while presumed older, are both Alexandrian.
2 The Alexandrian church was known to practice allegorical interpretation; and the Alexandrian ECF are known for taking liberties with the Word of God to the point that many are considered heretical by sound scholarship.
Those codices which are complete or nearly complete from the Syriac, Coptic, and Byzantine churches all include the disputed verses. These manuscripts come from geographically diverse areas all of which practiced literal interpretation.
A geographically isolated deletion by a church that practices allegorical interpretation seems more likely to me than geographically diverse additions, all in agreement, by churches that practice literal interpretation.
Who is more likely to alter God's Word?:
1) deletions by two transcribers from one city that believes that the Bible generally doesn't really mean what it says
2) additions by seventeen transcribers from 3 locations that believe that the Bible means exactly what it says with a few obvious exceptions.
My premise is that the former option is more likely regardless of the age of the documents!
my two concerns: Geographic isolation vs diversity & allegorical vs literal interpretation
Last edited:
good points... my understanding of textual criticism is that it can get deep real fast, and often involves input from many disciplines... and very expensive, too, if you want to go to the museums and libraries where the texts are kept...
my experience is with Nestle, mostly because it was what the American Bible Society published when I was into studying greek... also, it seems to be the one bible translators prefer... and, it has a 'ranking' system of which reading Nestle et. al. think is most likely...
also, looks like the SBL greek version is available free... don't know too much about it... my guess is that it's the free alternative to Nestle... I'm into free, to that's good, imo...
my experience is with Nestle, mostly because it was what the American Bible Society published when I was into studying greek... also, it seems to be the one bible translators prefer... and, it has a 'ranking' system of which reading Nestle et. al. think is most likely...
also, looks like the SBL greek version is available free... don't know too much about it... my guess is that it's the free alternative to Nestle... I'm into free, to that's good, imo...
But neither of these points go to whether a particular manuscript, or even a group of manuscripts, are trustworthy witnesses or not. Are you suggesting the Alexandrian ECFs wrote the manuscripts themselves? Are you suggesting the Alexandrian Fathers were always of one mind, and everyone interpreted the Scripture the same way? And, of course, interpreting Scriptures a certain way is very different to outright changing the text to suit your argument, an assertion that should be made with some sort of evidence, not speculation or arguments of guilt by association.
We have to remember first of all that there is considerable debate by exactly what views the Alexandrian Fathers held, and what they meant by them, and whether they held those views INSTEAD of orthodox interpretations, instead of as a kind of intellectual side project - much of what Clement of Alexandrian has been accused of in terms of allegorical interpretation or outright heresy descends to us via quotations from Photios, centuries later. Photios was explicitly trying to paint Clement as a heretic (for reasons both theological and ecclesiastical - many of the early fathers didn't quite toe the later prevailing line established by Rome), so it's not always clear what it was Clement originally meant - we can't examine some of what he said or wrote in its original context.
But even then, we know, for instance, that there was considerable debate within Alexandria itself about interpretative principles. Theohpilus of Alexandria disagreed with large swathes of Origen's writings. Then, you have people from the Byzantine part of the empire like Gregory of Nyssa who adopted and even evolved some of the more controversial elements of people like Origen (eg. he took Origen's thought about universalism to the next step, and went further than Origen himself ever did). And, of course, the likes of Clement of A and Origen were amongst the frontline apologists against Gnosticism in the early centuries, particularly against people like Valentinus.
The point being (as I said previously), it's impossible to make generalisations fit individuals. Even if it were, it still doesn't draw a connection between Alexandrians tampering with manuscripts, and even THEN, it's not clear why people would change the texts, and how, given it mattered greatly to them (as is clear if you read even a bit of what Clement of Alexandrian, for instance, wrote) what the apostolic texts actually said and meant to say.
Allegorical interpretations and unbiblical teaching were as possible in the Eastern empire as much as in the south Mediterranean. cf Marcion, Gregory of Nyssa, Appolinarius, Arius, Sabellius, Theodotus of Byzantium, etc
Also, it depends very much what variants you're talking about when looking at the versions. 1 John 5:7 (the comma) shows up in the Vulgate, and in a small number of late Byzantine Greek texts, but is missing in the Syriac. Similarly, the early Syriac and Coptic VSS don't have the Long Ending of Mark and stop at v8, against the majority of Byzantine texts. Going through such examples, it's always the case that the earliest versions were working from Alexandrian or Western type clusters, not Byzantine. It's only when you get to around the 5th century at the absolute earliest (depending on when you date later versions) that you can start to make the argument that the versions were working from another text. So your above statement is incorrect, unless qualified with examples.
The problem is that the Byzantine texts do not agree with each other, either. Again, find me any two Byzantine manuscripts that agree 100%. When we are talking about 'The Byzantine Text', we are not talking about one particular manuscript. We are talking about a statistical amalgamation of texts, accounting for variants and contradictory readings (with a bit of human judgement thrown in for when the statistical analysis produces a tied result). You have to do the precise same work with the Byzantine texts as you do with any other, as even Majority Text scholars know - as I mentioned earlier in this thread, a key reading in Romans 5:1 in the Byzantine tradition is almost exactly split 50% down the middle! That means that half of all the Byzantine MSS are WRONG at that verse. Do we conclude that half of scribes believe the Bible was allegorical and it didn't matter? Or is there are more reasonable theory accounting for the data?
Loaded question. You have no way of knowing what motivated the transcribers, you have no way of knowing the exact provenance of the manuscripts in question, you are also throwing around numbers of transcribers that you've gotten from I don't know where. The Alexandrian manuscripts don't all come, or indeed were written in, Alexandria itself any more than the Byzantine texts were all written in or come from Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul. The names themselves are only generally applicable to geography, and really talk much more about the genealogy of the text (and even then, there's argument about how accurate the demarcations actually are)
And then, of course, as I said before, it goes beyond Aleph and B - the papyrii didn't all come from Alexandria either, and similarly do not represent a Byzantine text type. 'Two transcribers' is just a very inaccurate description of the situation. Obviously, I reject the premise of the question.
And I believe that premise is a more than a little shaky, as I have illustrated.
I hope I've pushed back just enough to give you pause for thought on your dichotomies.
We have to remember first of all that there is considerable debate by exactly what views the Alexandrian Fathers held, and what they meant by them, and whether they held those views INSTEAD of orthodox interpretations, instead of as a kind of intellectual side project - much of what Clement of Alexandrian has been accused of in terms of allegorical interpretation or outright heresy descends to us via quotations from Photios, centuries later. Photios was explicitly trying to paint Clement as a heretic (for reasons both theological and ecclesiastical - many of the early fathers didn't quite toe the later prevailing line established by Rome), so it's not always clear what it was Clement originally meant - we can't examine some of what he said or wrote in its original context.
But even then, we know, for instance, that there was considerable debate within Alexandria itself about interpretative principles. Theohpilus of Alexandria disagreed with large swathes of Origen's writings. Then, you have people from the Byzantine part of the empire like Gregory of Nyssa who adopted and even evolved some of the more controversial elements of people like Origen (eg. he took Origen's thought about universalism to the next step, and went further than Origen himself ever did). And, of course, the likes of Clement of A and Origen were amongst the frontline apologists against Gnosticism in the early centuries, particularly against people like Valentinus.
The point being (as I said previously), it's impossible to make generalisations fit individuals. Even if it were, it still doesn't draw a connection between Alexandrians tampering with manuscripts, and even THEN, it's not clear why people would change the texts, and how, given it mattered greatly to them (as is clear if you read even a bit of what Clement of Alexandrian, for instance, wrote) what the apostolic texts actually said and meant to say.
Allegorical interpretations and unbiblical teaching were as possible in the Eastern empire as much as in the south Mediterranean. cf Marcion, Gregory of Nyssa, Appolinarius, Arius, Sabellius, Theodotus of Byzantium, etc
Also, it depends very much what variants you're talking about when looking at the versions. 1 John 5:7 (the comma) shows up in the Vulgate, and in a small number of late Byzantine Greek texts, but is missing in the Syriac. Similarly, the early Syriac and Coptic VSS don't have the Long Ending of Mark and stop at v8, against the majority of Byzantine texts. Going through such examples, it's always the case that the earliest versions were working from Alexandrian or Western type clusters, not Byzantine. It's only when you get to around the 5th century at the absolute earliest (depending on when you date later versions) that you can start to make the argument that the versions were working from another text. So your above statement is incorrect, unless qualified with examples.
The problem is that the Byzantine texts do not agree with each other, either. Again, find me any two Byzantine manuscripts that agree 100%. When we are talking about 'The Byzantine Text', we are not talking about one particular manuscript. We are talking about a statistical amalgamation of texts, accounting for variants and contradictory readings (with a bit of human judgement thrown in for when the statistical analysis produces a tied result). You have to do the precise same work with the Byzantine texts as you do with any other, as even Majority Text scholars know - as I mentioned earlier in this thread, a key reading in Romans 5:1 in the Byzantine tradition is almost exactly split 50% down the middle! That means that half of all the Byzantine MSS are WRONG at that verse. Do we conclude that half of scribes believe the Bible was allegorical and it didn't matter? Or is there are more reasonable theory accounting for the data?
Loaded question. You have no way of knowing what motivated the transcribers, you have no way of knowing the exact provenance of the manuscripts in question, you are also throwing around numbers of transcribers that you've gotten from I don't know where. The Alexandrian manuscripts don't all come, or indeed were written in, Alexandria itself any more than the Byzantine texts were all written in or come from Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul. The names themselves are only generally applicable to geography, and really talk much more about the genealogy of the text (and even then, there's argument about how accurate the demarcations actually are)
And then, of course, as I said before, it goes beyond Aleph and B - the papyrii didn't all come from Alexandria either, and similarly do not represent a Byzantine text type. 'Two transcribers' is just a very inaccurate description of the situation. Obviously, I reject the premise of the question.
And I believe that premise is a more than a little shaky, as I have illustrated.
I hope I've pushed back just enough to give you pause for thought on your dichotomies.
Last edited:
C
Hey guys, Im not sure what to make of it. On one hand the newer translations really help Me understand and not have to re read it 2 times, maybe Im just making a big deal out of nothing. I think what I'm going to do is read 1 of each, so I'll read the 1 chapter in the older version and 1 of the newer translation. You guys have way more knowledge on this topic
Than myself so I'll have to defer to you.
Thanks again!
Than myself so I'll have to defer to you.
Thanks again!
Nick,
I agree with everything you said in your post above; but we are talking past each other.
It is a demonstrable fact that the Alexandrian church generally practiced allegorical interpretation and generally taught false doctrine. It is a demonstrable fact that ALL manuscripts older than the 5th century including Sinaticus, and Vaticanus come from Alexandria.
My premise is that people who believe that God's word doesn't really mean what it says are more likely to delete from God's Word than people who take it literally are to add to it.
My premise is that all the deletions are centered in Alexandria. Things deleted in one geographic area are more likely than things added in 4 or more places all in agreement.
The Syriac Coptic, Ethiopic, and Byzantine churches generally practiced literal interpretation, and generally taught sound doctrine. Except for several fragments, the manuscripts from these 4 churches contain the disputed verses.
Even the vast majority of Alexandrian manuscripts contain the disputed verses.
My premise is that literalists from diverse locations are less likely to add to Gods Word, in agreement with each other, than allegorists from one location are to delete from God's Word. I think it more likely that 2 Alexandrian copyists deleted the verses early than that hundreds of copyists from four or more geographically separated churches added them late.
When I speek of agreement I refer to substantial agreement not verbatim agreement.
I agree with everything you said in your post above; but we are talking past each other.
It is a demonstrable fact that the Alexandrian church generally practiced allegorical interpretation and generally taught false doctrine. It is a demonstrable fact that ALL manuscripts older than the 5th century including Sinaticus, and Vaticanus come from Alexandria.
My premise is that people who believe that God's word doesn't really mean what it says are more likely to delete from God's Word than people who take it literally are to add to it.
My premise is that all the deletions are centered in Alexandria. Things deleted in one geographic area are more likely than things added in 4 or more places all in agreement.
The Syriac Coptic, Ethiopic, and Byzantine churches generally practiced literal interpretation, and generally taught sound doctrine. Except for several fragments, the manuscripts from these 4 churches contain the disputed verses.
Even the vast majority of Alexandrian manuscripts contain the disputed verses.
My premise is that literalists from diverse locations are less likely to add to Gods Word, in agreement with each other, than allegorists from one location are to delete from God's Word. I think it more likely that 2 Alexandrian copyists deleted the verses early than that hundreds of copyists from four or more geographically separated churches added them late.
When I speek of agreement I refer to substantial agreement not verbatim agreement.
Last edited:
E
The most accurate translation is the AUTHORIZED KING JAMES BIBLE,that does not mean the NEW KING JAMES BIBLE which is dodgy to say the least.Do some research because this is a very important topic.The new age translations are missing multiple verses and are very erroneous. Isaiah 9:3 KJV- ''Thou has multiplied the nation and NOT increased the joy''. NIV reads ''You have enlarged the nation and INCREASED their joy''. What the heck is going on here?
There is an old saying that bible translations are written for two reasons... to push ones opinion and to make a buck,if you ever have to go into spiritual warfare you want to be sure your bible is not firing blanks.
There is an old saying that bible translations are written for two reasons... to push ones opinion and to make a buck,if you ever have to go into spiritual warfare you want to be sure your bible is not firing blanks.
E
Most of these new age bibles were translated by non Christians and occultists in particular(Wescott and Hort) and churches actually use them!.Actually the authorized King James bible is easier to read than these new age translations once one is accustomed to it(,which only takes about two weeks).
It is still a great mystery to me why new age churches continue to use these suspicious texts,which there is now over one hundred different translations,you can walk into anyone of these Churches today and find nobody is on the same page anymore.
If you are interested in seeking true Christianity as opposed to ''Churchianity'' a good place to start is the CREATION LIBERTY website,I don't support all of there beliefs but I do agree with most of them.
It is still a great mystery to me why new age churches continue to use these suspicious texts,which there is now over one hundred different translations,you can walk into anyone of these Churches today and find nobody is on the same page anymore.
If you are interested in seeking true Christianity as opposed to ''Churchianity'' a good place to start is the CREATION LIBERTY website,I don't support all of there beliefs but I do agree with most of them.
E
Just because one book feels easier to read than the other does not make it correct.
I started with a Good news bible but was blessed to meet someone who enlightened
me to the deliberate and subtle corruptions of these new age texts.I am not saying for one minute
that these new age bibles do not contain the word of GOD,because they do,however as for bible translations go the KJV does not just contain the word of GOD, it is the word of GOD!
Give yourself two weeks with the KJV and by then you should be ploughing through it,trust me it is a simpler and more accurate bible than the worldly new age versions, so don't sell yourself short with a wet noodle.
I started with a Good news bible but was blessed to meet someone who enlightened
me to the deliberate and subtle corruptions of these new age texts.I am not saying for one minute
that these new age bibles do not contain the word of GOD,because they do,however as for bible translations go the KJV does not just contain the word of GOD, it is the word of GOD!
Give yourself two weeks with the KJV and by then you should be ploughing through it,trust me it is a simpler and more accurate bible than the worldly new age versions, so don't sell yourself short with a wet noodle.
No, you are specifically talking past me. Please address the specifics of my previous points It is NOT demonstrable the Alexandrian church generally taught false teaching. Are you going to called the likes of Theophilus, Athanasius, Cyril, etc false teachers? 'Generally' doesn't cut it, you have to draw a line between specific transcribors, motivated by theological bias, and changes in the text.
I prefer to actually study the texts than speculate about who may or may not have written a given text. Or perhaps I should speculate that Marcion is responsible for the Byzantine text of the gospels? Why not, while we're throwing speculation around.
Again, you're talking past me. No two Byzantine manuscripts are in agreement. Go back and read my discussion of Romans 5:1. Your comparison is false, because there is a greater diversity in the Byzantine tradition in terms of readings usually than in the Alexandrian. Mark 6:33 has about four or five different variants in the Byzantine text before you even look at Alexandrian type MSS.
And, again, you're presupposing deletions. Could it also not equally be said that all the additions were centered in a rough geographical area of about 3 or 4 regional centers, which explains the diversity of readings particularly in the 8th to 12 centuries.
Again, no two Byzantine MSS agree. 1 John 5:7, which is in the TR and in several English translations, does not appear in the vast majority of Greek Byzantine MSS. You'll need to qualify what you mean by "MSS from these 4 churches contain the disputed verses", and which disputed verses you're actually talking about.
Also, let me list some Byzantine heretics again. Marcion, Gregory of Nyssa, Appolinarius, Arius, Sabellius, Theodotus of Byzantium. Why is it relevant that there was false teaching in Alexandria, in terms of the MSS tradition, but not in the case of the Byzantine part of the empire?
But you have no way of knowing the motivations or theological persuasions of the copyists, or that ANY of the changes were deliberate and malicious. Without out that, your above point doesn't amount to alot, and it is far better in my mind to actually look at the texts for evidence, than speculating.
What qualifies as substantial agreement, in your view? What happens when there is substantial disagreement in the Byz MSS about a verse, and the variants at stake fundamentally change the meaning of the verse? E.G, Romans 5:1?
I prefer to actually study the texts than speculate about who may or may not have written a given text. Or perhaps I should speculate that Marcion is responsible for the Byzantine text of the gospels? Why not, while we're throwing speculation around.
Again, you're talking past me. No two Byzantine manuscripts are in agreement. Go back and read my discussion of Romans 5:1. Your comparison is false, because there is a greater diversity in the Byzantine tradition in terms of readings usually than in the Alexandrian. Mark 6:33 has about four or five different variants in the Byzantine text before you even look at Alexandrian type MSS.
And, again, you're presupposing deletions. Could it also not equally be said that all the additions were centered in a rough geographical area of about 3 or 4 regional centers, which explains the diversity of readings particularly in the 8th to 12 centuries.
Again, no two Byzantine MSS agree. 1 John 5:7, which is in the TR and in several English translations, does not appear in the vast majority of Greek Byzantine MSS. You'll need to qualify what you mean by "MSS from these 4 churches contain the disputed verses", and which disputed verses you're actually talking about.
Also, let me list some Byzantine heretics again. Marcion, Gregory of Nyssa, Appolinarius, Arius, Sabellius, Theodotus of Byzantium. Why is it relevant that there was false teaching in Alexandria, in terms of the MSS tradition, but not in the case of the Byzantine part of the empire?
But you have no way of knowing the motivations or theological persuasions of the copyists, or that ANY of the changes were deliberate and malicious. Without out that, your above point doesn't amount to alot, and it is far better in my mind to actually look at the texts for evidence, than speculating.
What qualifies as substantial agreement, in your view? What happens when there is substantial disagreement in the Byz MSS about a verse, and the variants at stake fundamentally change the meaning of the verse? E.G, Romans 5:1?
Last edited:
That's not a bad approach. The beauty of today's day and age is that you can get access to a bunch of different translations quickly and easily. 99% of the time, you won't even need to do that for textual issues, but perhaps only for when a verse is just hard to understand.
I'd recommend making something like an NIV, HCSB, or ESV your default translation, because, amongst other things, those translations will usually tell you when there's a textual issue in the footnotes, that you then might want to look at your KJV or other translation to look close at. I'm not sure KJV texts always have these footnotes (especially if they're an older version of the KJV), so it's harder to know when there's a textual issue.
Enjoy your reading!
I'd recommend making something like an NIV, HCSB, or ESV your default translation, because, amongst other things, those translations will usually tell you when there's a textual issue in the footnotes, that you then might want to look at your KJV or other translation to look close at. I'm not sure KJV texts always have these footnotes (especially if they're an older version of the KJV), so it's harder to know when there's a textual issue.
Enjoy your reading!