Archived
Post
|
John
1:18
The reading "only begotten God" is spurious. The
correct gloss ("only begotten son") is supported
by the following witnesses:
- Uncials:
A (5th century), E, F, G, H, Delta, Theta, Psi
(these last 7 codices from the 8th and 9th centuries.)
- Minuscules:
family 1, family 13, 28, 157, 180, 205, and
numerous others.
- Lectionaries:
majority.
- Ancient
versions: several Old Latin mss. (including
"a," 4th century), the Vulgate, the Curetonian
version of the Old Syriac (3rd-4th century),
the Harclean and Palestinian Syriac, the Armenian
and Ethiopic versions, the earlier of two Georgian
versions (9th century), and the Old Church Slavonic
version;
- Church
fathers: Irenaeus Hippolytus (d. 235), Letter
of Hymenaeus (about 268), Athanasius, Ambrose,
Augustine, Alexander, Eustathius, Chrysostom,
Theodore, Tertullian, Jerome, and countless
others.
Textual critics conclude:
- The
Old Latin manuscripts of John 1:18 read:
‘deum nemo uidit umquam. unigenitus filius.
qui est in sinu patris. ipse narrauit.’
The word ‘unigenitus’ means, ‘only begotten,
only; of the same parentage.’
Traupman, Dr. John C. (1995), Latin Dictionary.
- Virtually
every other representative of every other textual
grouping - Western, Caesarean, Byzantine - attests
'the only begotten son'. And the reading
even occurs in several of the secondary Alexandrian
witnesses (e.g., C3, Y, 892, 1241, Ath Alex).
This is not simply
a case of one reading supported by the earliest
and best manuscripts, and another supported
by late and inferior ones,
but of one reading
[’only begotten God’] found almost
exclusively in the Alexandrian tradition,
and another [’only
begotten son’] found sporadically
there, and virtually
everywhere else.
Thus both readings are ancient; one [’only
begotten God’]
is fairly localized, the other
[’only begotten son’] is
almost ubiquitous.
Ehrman, B. D (1993), The Orthodox Corruption
of Scripture.
Trinitarians frequently forget that Arius was
perfectly happy with the reading "only begotten
God", using it to support his Christology during
the debates of the 4th Century AD. Indeed, it
is far more suited to Arian Christology, than
it is to Trinitarianism.
Acts 20:28
The reading "purchased with His own blood" is spurious.
According to the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum
Graece, edition 27, the correct gloss of Acts
20:28 is "The blood of His own [son]", with
the word "son" implied by the context.
Writing in his Textual Commentary on the Greek
New Testament (1994), Bruce Metzger (one of
the editors of the NA27, and a notable authority
on textual criticism), quotes The Beginnings
of Christianity to emphasise his own argument
for the corrected gloss:
tou aimatos tou idiou was changed to tou idiou
aimatos (influenced by Hebrews 9:12?), which
is neater, but perverts the sense...
The New English Translation (which follows the textual
amendment) has an explanatory footnote:
Or 'with his own blood'; Grk 'with
the blood of his own.' The genitive construction
could be taken in two ways: (1) as an attributive
genitive (second attributive position) meaning
“his own blood'; or (2) as a possessive genitive,
'with the blood of his own.' In this
case the referent is the Son, and the referent
has been specified in the translation for clarity.
See further C. F. DeVine, The Blood of God,
CBQ 9 (1947): 381-408.
Moreover, the corrected gloss is supported by the
best manuscripts, papyri and fragmenta, including:
- Papyri
P41 and P74 (witnesses of the first order.)
- The
great uncial MSS Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus,
Ephraemi Rescriptus, and Bezae (witnesses of
the first order.)
- The
principle miniscules 33, 36, 945, 1175, 1739,
1891 and others (witnesses of the first and
second order.)
- Patristic
witness (Cyril of Alexandria.)
A non-Christian scholar concludes:
For this final phrase [bought with the
blood of his own] has been changed in a number
of witnesses precisely along the 'exchange
of predicates' mentioned earlier, making the
text appeart not to discourage a Patripassianist
misconstrual so much as to encourage an
orthodox interpretation that Christ, as God, obtained
the church by shedding his blood.
Thus, in the majority of Greek witnesses, the
'blood of His own (Son)' (tou aimatos
tou idiou), has been changed to read 'His
own blood' (tou idiou aimatos).
Now the text states that God has
obtained the church through the shedding 'of
His own blood'.
The text is nonetheless secondary; it survives
in none of the early witnesses to the text and
serves a clear theological function.
Ehrman, Bart (1996), The Orthodox Corruption
of Scripture.
Ephesians 3:9
The reading "who created all things by Jesus Christ"
is spurious. Adam Clarke argues strongly against
it in his Commentary, believing that it results
in an unorthodox minoration of the Son:
Who created all things by Jesus Christ -
Some very judicious critics are of opinion that
this does not refer to the material creation;
and that we should understand the whole as referring
to the formation of all God’s dispensations of
grace, mercy, and truth, which have been planned,
managed, and executed by Christ, from the foundation
of the world to the present time.
But the words "by Jesus
Christ", are wanting in ABCD*FG, and several others;
also in the Syriac, Arabic of Erpen, Coptic, Ethiopic,
Vulgate, and Itala; as also in several of the
fathers. Griesbach has thrown the words out of
the text; and Professor White says, “certissime
delenda,” they are indisputably spurious.
The text, therefore, should be read:
which from the beginning of the world had been
hidden in God who created
all things.
No inferiority of Christ can be argued from a
clause of whose spuriousness there is the strongest
evidence.
Not only that, but:
- The
world "mystery" is not original, being absent
from all of the uncials and early fathers.
- 99%
of the miniscules read "administration" rather
than "mystery."
- The
only manuscripts to read "mystery" are
miniscule 31, and a handful of other very late
manuscripts.
And of course, as Clarke has correctly observed,
the last three words, "by Jesus Christ," are absent
from all the earliest codices and papyri (P46,
Aleph, A, B, C, D, F, G, P, 33, 1319, 1611, 2127,
etc.), most versions, and the earliest patristic
quotations.
I Timothy 3:16
The reading "God was seen in the flesh, etc..."
is spurious.
Modern translations provide the corrected gloss:
New American Standard Bible.
By common confession, great is the mystery of
godliness: He who
was revealed in the flesh, was vindicated in the
Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations,
believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
Bruce Metzger (the notable textual critic of our
time) says that the translation "he who" is...
...supported by the earliest and best uncials...
no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than
the eighth or ninth century supports "theos,"
all ancient versions presuppose "hos" or "ho"'
['he who' or 'he'] and no
patristic writer prior to the last third of the
fourth century testifies to the reading "theos."
The reading 'theos' arose either (a) accidentally,
or (B) deliberately, either to supply a substantive
for the following six verbs [the six verbs
that follow in the verse], or, with less probability,
to provide greater dogmatic precision. [i.e.,
to provide a verse which more clearly supports
the Trinitarian position.]
Metzger, Bruce (1975), A Textual Commentary
on the Greek New Testament.
By replacing the word "God" (a spurious interpolation)
with the words "he who", the new translations
present us with a clear and irrefutable reference
to Christ, the representative of God.
Was Christ revealed in the flesh? Yes. Was Christ
vindicated in the Spirit? Yes. Was Christ seen
by angels (messengers)? Yes. Was Christ proclaimed
among the nations? Yes. Was Christ believed on
in the world? Yes. Was Christ taken up in glory?
Yes.
But was Christ God? No. And the apostle
Paul gives us no reason to believe that he was.
I John 5:7
The reading found in the KJV is spurious. It is
is absent from every Greek manuscript except eight,
all dating from the sixteenth century or later.
These include 61, 88, 221, 429, 636, 918, and 2318.
Of these 8 manuscripts, four contain the passage
as a variant reading in the margin, added by a later
hand.
Erasmus, in the first two editions of the Textus
Receptus, did not include the passage, stating
that he could not find it in any of the Greek codices
available to him. After considerable pressure (and
possibly the presentation of a ready-made "ancient
copy"), Erasmus included it in his third edition.
From here, it made its way into the KJV.
Bruce Metzger comments:
The passage is absent
from every known Greek manuscript except eight,
and these contain the passage in what appears
to be a translation from a
late rescension of the Latin Vulgate...
The passage is quoted by none
of the Greek fathers, who, had they known it,
would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian
controversies (Sabellian and Arian).
Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version
of the (Latin) Acts of the Lutheran Council in
1215.
The passage is absent
from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac,
Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic),
except the Latin;
and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its
early form (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine), or
in the Vulgate (B) as issued by Jerome (codex
Fuldensis [copied
AD 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied
before AD 716]) or © as revised by Alcuin (first
hand of codex Vallicellianus 9th century.)
The earliest instance of the passage being quoted
as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is
in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber
Apologeticus (chapter 4), attributed
either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died
about 385CE) or to his follower Bishop Instantius...
Metzger, Bruce M. (1971), A Textual Commentaty
on the Greek New Testament.
It is true to say that of all the Trinitarian
interpolations, I John 5:7 is arguably
the most famous (or rather, the most infamous!)
Revelation 1:8
The reading "the beginning and the ending, saith
the Lord", is spurious.
Trinitarian scholar Albert Barnes (Notes on the
Bible) concedes:
As there is, however, a difference of reading
in this place in the Greek text, and as it cannot
be absolutely certain that the writer meant to
refer to the Lord Jesus specifically here, this
cannot be adduced with propriety as a proof-text
to demonstrate his divinity. Many mss., instead
of “Lord,” (kurios), read “God,” (Theos), and
this reading is adopted by Griesbach, Tittman,
and Hahn, and is now regarded as the correct reading.
There is no real incongruity in supposing, also,
that the writer here meant to refer to God as
such, since the introduction of a reference to
him would not be inappropriate to his manifest
design. Besides, a
portion of the language used here, “which is,
and was, and is to come,” is what would more naturally
suggest a reference to God as such, than to the
Lord Jesus Christ.
See Revelation 1:4.
The object for which this passage referring to
the “first and the last - to him who was, and
is, and is to come,” is introduced here evidently
is, to show that as he was clothed with omnipotence,
and would continue to exist through all ages to
come as he had existed in all ages past, there
could be no doubt about his ability to execute
all which it is said he would execute.
The New English Bible (which uses the corrected
gloss) has an explanatory footnote:
The reading “Omega” has superior ms evidence
(Í1 A C 1611 Byz) to the addition of “the beginning
and the end” (ajrchV kaiV tevlo" or hJ ajrchV
kaiV toV tevlo", arch kai telo" or Jh arch kai
to telo"). There is no good reason why a scribe
would have deleted the words, but their clarifying
value and the fact that they harmonize with 21:6
indicate that they are a secondary addition to
the text.
Other commentators follow suit.
Revelation 1:11
The reading "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and
the last: and" is spurious.
Adam Clarke writes in his Commentary:
Rev 1:11 - I am Alpha and Omega, the first
and the last: and - This whole clause
is wanting in ABC, thirty-one others; some editions;
the Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Slavonic,
Vulgate, Arethas, Andreas, and Primasius. Griesbach
has left it out of the text.
Robert Nguyen Cramer (Trinitarian scholar) provides
a veritable tidal wave of evidence against the corrupted
reading:
Virtually all modern translations do not include
in Rev 1:11 the following words that are in the
KJV version of that verse:
Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the
last: and,
This wording at the
beginning of the KJV's version of Rev. 1:11
is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor
is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern
translation or in Bruce Metzger's definitive
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,
Second Edition (New York: United Bible Societies,
1994, phone: 800-322-4253).
(The New King James Version [NKJV] does include
this wording; but the NKJV is not a modern translation;
it is only a modern-English rewording of the the
original KJV, minus the Aprocrypha, since the
Aprocrypha was in the original KJV.)
It should be noted that the phrases "Alpha and
Omega," "the first and the last," and/or "the
beginning and the end" are found in the original
texts of Rev. 1:8, 1:17, 2:8, 21:6, and 22:13.
(These phrases are allusions to the wording in
Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12. ) Of these five verses
Rev. 22:13 is closest to the KJV's wording
in the beginning of Rev. 1:11, but even in Rev.
22:13 the KJV needs some correction. The errors
in both Rev. 1:11 and Rev 22:13 are due to the
inaccuracy of the so-called Textus Receptus, the
Greek text upon which the KJV's New Testament
was based.
(According to Bruce Metzger (in The Text of the
New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and
Restoration, Second Edition, Oxford University
Press, 1968), the Textus Receptus was hastily
and haphazardly prepared and was based mostly
upon unreliable 12th century manuscripts. It was
the work of a Dutchman by the name of Desiderius
Erasmus and was first published in 1516.
Though what became known as the Textus Receptus
was inferior in accuracy to the very first complete
Greek New Testament, the so-called Complutensian
New Testament that was published only two years
earlier in 1514, Erasmus' text was marketed
much more effectively and was used as the basis
for all the principal Protestant translations
in the languages of Europe until 1881, when the
English Revised Version [RV] was first published.
For a complete explanation of the basis for the
errors in the King James Version and its impact
on biblical studies, browse http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-t.htm.)
Regarding Rev 22:13, the Textus Receptus'
rendering of that verse had some of the Greek
wording and word order incorrect; thus, in that
verse the KJV translation does not exactly represent
the original text. Based upon the much more reliable
editions of the Greek New Testament that are available
today, the New Revised Standard Version [NRSV]
does accurately (and quite literally) represent
the correct wording and word order of the original
Greek text of Rev. 22:13, which reads,
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the
last, the beginning and the end.
For the complete text of Cramer's article,
see here.
Technical
Terms
Lectionaries:
The lectionaries are, of course, the service books
of the church, containing the appointed readings
("lections") for each day of the church year.
As such, they were extremely important to individual
churches (a church would find a continuous-text
manuscript for study purposes, but it simply had
to have a lectionary for reading during services).
The number of lectionaries now known is somewhat
less than the number of continuous-text manuscripts
(about 2300 lectionaries, as compared to some
3200 continuous-text manuscripts of all types),
but this may be due simply to the fact that they
were well-used but no longer prized once printed
editions became available.
From the online Encyclopaedia of Textual Criticism.
The article on lectionaries is located here.
Minuscule:
Minuscule, or lower case, refers to the smaller
form of letters: a,b,c. Originally alphabets were
written entirely in majuscule (capital) letters
which was spaced between well-defined upper and
lower bounds. When written quickly with a pen,
these tended to rounder and simpler forms, like
uncials. It is from these that the first minuscule
hands developed, the half-uncials and cursive
minuscule, which no longer stay bound between
a pair of lines.
These in turn formed the foundations for carolingian
minuscule, developed by Alcuin for use in the
court of Charlemagne, which quickly spread across
Europe. Here for the first time it became common
to mix both majuscule and minuscule letters in
a single text.
Traditionally more important letters - those beginning
sentences or nouns - were made larger; now they
were written in a different script, although there
was no fixed capitalization system until the early
18th century (and even then all nouns were capitalized,
a system still followed in German but not in English).
Similar developments have taken place in other
alphabets. The minuscule script for the Greek
alphabet has its origins in the seventh century
and acquired its quadrilinear form in the eighth
century. Over time, uncial letter forms were increasingly
mixed into the script. The earliest dated Greek
minuscule text is the Uspenski Gospels (MS 461)
in the year 835. The modern practice of capitalizing
every sentence seems to be imported.
From Wikipedia - the online encyclopaedia.
The article on minuscules is located here.
Uncial:
Uncial is a majuscule script commonly used from
the 3rd to 8th centuries CE by Latin and Greek
scribes. Early forms are characterized by broad
single stroke letters using simple round forms
taking advantage of the new parchment and vellum
surfaces, as opposed to the angular, multiple
stroke letters which are more suited for rougher
surfaces, such as papyrus. In the oldest examples
of uncial, all of the letters are disconnected
from one another, and word breaks are typically
not used.
As the script evolved over the centuries, the
characters became more complex. Specifically,
around 600 CE, flourishes and exaggerations of
the basic strokes began to appear in more manuscripts.
Ascenders and descenders were the first major
alterations, followed by twists of the tool in
the basic stroke and overlapping. By the time
the more compact minuscule scripts awoke circa
800 CE, some of the evolved uncial styles formed
the basis for these simplified, smaller scripts.
Uncial was still used, particularly for copies
of the Bible, tapering off until around the 10th
century.
The word, uncial, is also sometimes used to refer
to manuscripts that have been scribed in uncial,
especially when differentiating from those which
have been penned with minuscule. Some of the most
noteworthy Greek uncials are:
Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Vaticanus
Codex Alexandrinus
Codex Bezae
Codex Petropolitanus
From Wikipedia. The article on uncials is located
here.
|