The PuritanBoard - View Single Post - What is the authentic New Testament text?

Jerusalem Blade · #10 (**permalink**) 08-11-2006, 12:43 PM

A qualification as to my use of the term, “family trees”, as regards text types. I use it very loosely, and not according the technical sense which indicates genealogical descent. This is a very important point, for the concept of Textual Genealogy played a very large part in Hort’s theory.

In Maurice Robinson’s Introduction to his and Wm. Pierpont’s, The New Testament In The Original Greek According To The Byzantine / Majority Textform, he states (regarding the first of five “pillars” of Hort’s theory),

The argument from genealogy. This hypothesis claims that all manuscripts of a texttype — no matter how numerous — have descended from a single archetype (parental anscestor) of that texttype. One therefore need only consider the archetype form, which becomes but a single witness in competition with the remaining archetypal “single-witnesses” of other texttypes. This argument — established from a hypothetical stemmatic diagram — effectively eliminated, in Hort’s view, the “problem” of the Byzantine Textform’s overwhelming numerical superiority…[p. xxi]

The genealogical argument was never actually applied to the New Testament text by Hort, and in fact has never been so applied by anyone. As Colwell noted, Hort utilized this principle solely to “depose the Textus Receptus,” and not to establish a line of descent. His “stemmatic diagram” was itself a pure fabrication. [p. xxiii]

In other words, a strict line of descent of texts, traceable to specific ancestors, is not acknowledged as a reality by text critics.

In Pickering’s, The Identity of the New Testament Text, chapter 4, “An Evaluation of the W-H Theory”, he thoroughly examines the issue of genealogy and the texts. As stated above, this is a crucial matter, for it is the foundation of modern text criticism’s attempt to overthrow the Byzantine Texttype.

In Jack Moorman’s, Forever Settled (link to entire book given above), in Part Two, “The Issues We Face Regarding The New Testament Text,” Section XVI, ARE THERE REALLY THREE (OR MORE) FAMILIES OF MANUSCRIPTS?, he writes,

Though there is truth in the above commonly presented position and we have quoted Dr. Hills at length, yet the basic idea of textual types or families has its source in the naturalistic viewpoint and we do not believe that it represents the facts concerning the distribution of MSS in the early centuries. With some 85% or more of the 5000 extant MSS falling into the category of the Received Text, there is in fact only one textual family the Received. All that remains is so contradictory, so confused, so mixed, that not by the furthest stretch of imagination can they be considered several families of MSS.

Rather than face squarely this preponderance of support for the TR, naturalistic scholars with their ingrained bias against that text have found it convenient to talk of three or four families, as if all were basically equals. This was one of the main pillars in the Westcott and Hort theory which enabled them to Construct a new Greek Testament on the fewest possible MSS.

Yet as the following quotations from "The Identity of the New Testament Text" by Wilbur Pickering show, most present day textual scholars (mainly naturalistic) are prepared to abandon the entire idea.

"We have reconstructed text types and families and subfamilies and in so doing have created things that never before existed on earth or in heaven." (Parvis).

"The major mistake is made in thinking of the old text-types as frozen blocks." (Colwell).

"It is still customary to divide MSS into four well-known families ...this classical division can no longer be maintained." (Klijn).

"Was there a fundamental flaw in the previous investigation which tolerated so erroneous a grouping ... Those few men who have done extensive collating of MSS, or paid attention to those done by others, as a rule have not accepted such erroneous groupings." (Metzger).

"I defy anyone, after having carefully perused the foregoing lists ... to go back to the teaching of Dr. Hort (regarding text-types) with any degree of confidence." (Hoskier).
1. IS THERE A UNIFIED WESTERN TEXT?

Codex "D" Bezae is claimed to be the primary representative of this textual family, but - "What we have called the D-text type, indeed, is not so much a text as a congeries of various readings, not descending from any one archetype ... No one MS can be taken as even approximately representing the D-text." (Kenyon) .

Colwell observes that the Nestle text (25th edition) denies the existence of the Western text as an identifiable group, saying it is "a denial with which I agree." Speaking of von Soden's classification of the Western text, Metzger says, "so diverse are the textual phenomena that von Soden was compelled to posit seventeen subgroups." And Klijn, speaking of a pure or original western text affirms that "such a text did not exist."

2. IS THERE A UNIFIED ALEXANDRIAN TEXT?

Codex "B" Vaticanus and Codex "Aleph" Sinaiticus are the two famous representatives of the Alexandrian "family" of manuscripts. But the evidence shows that those family members don’t get along very well.

Colwell offers the result of an interesting experiment.

After a careful study of all alleged B text-type witnesses in the first chapter of Mark, six Greek MSS emerged as primary witnesses - Aleph, B, L, 33, 892 and 2427. Therefore the weaker B type MSS C, Sangallenses, 157, 517, 579, 1241 and 1342 were set aside. Then on the basis of the six primary witnesses (Note how few, why not more?), an average or mean text was reconstructed including all the readings supported by the majority of the primary witnesses. Even on this restricted basis the amount of variation was dismaying. In this first chapter of Mark, each of the six witnesses differed from the average B text as follows:

L..........19 times,
Aleph....26 times,
2427....32 times,
33........33 times,
B..........39 times,
892......41 times.

These results show convincingly that any attempt to reconstruct the text on the basis of B-type MSS is doomed to failure. The text ... is an artificial entity that never existed.

Hoskier, after filling 450 pages with a detailed and careful discussion of the errors in Codex B and another 400 on the idiosyncrasies of Codex Aleph, affirms that in the Gospels along these two MSS differ well over 3,000 times, which number does not include minor errors such as spelling, nor variants between certain synonyms which might be due to "provincial exchange."

In Hills' chart showing the family tree of manuscripts, Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 are listed with the other Alexandrian MSS.

Quoting again from "The Identity of the New Testament Text"

Both P66 and P75 have been generally affirmed to belong to the "Alexandrian text-type." Klijn offers the results of a comparison of Aleph, B, P45, 1166 and P75 in the passages where they are all extant (John 10:7-25, 10:32 - 11:10, 11:19 - 33 and 11:43-56). He considered only those places where Aleph and B disagree and where at least one of the papyri joins either Aleph or B. He found eight such places plus 43 where all three of the papyri line up with Aleph or B. He stated the result for the 43 places as follows (to which I have added figures for the Textus Receptus, British and Foreign Bible Society 1946):

P45 agrees with Aleph 19 times, with B 24 times, with TR 32 times.
P66 agrees with Aleph 14 times, with B 29 times, with TR 33 times.
P75 agrees with Aleph 9 times, with B 33 times, with TR 29 times.
P45, 66, 75 agree with Aleph 4 times, with B 18 times, with TR 20 times.
P45, 66 agree with Aleph 7 times, with B 3 times, with TR 8 times.
P45, 75 agree with Aleph I time, with B 2 times, with TR 2 times.
P66, 75 agree with Aleph 0 times, with 11 8 times, with TR 5 times.

As for the eight other places,

P45 agrees with Aleph 2 times, with B 1 time, with TR I time.
P66 agrees with Aleph 2 times, with B 3 times, with TR 5 times.
P75 agrees with Aleph 2 times, with B 3 times, with TR 4 times.
60 (Each of the three papyri his other readings as well.)

Is the summary assignment of P66 and P75 to the "Alexandrian text-type" altogether reasonable?

If the above confuses you a little, you may be excused. But it demonstrates the knot that naturalistic critics have tied themselves into when refusing to face the fact of the Received Text. Several other examples of the futility of trying to group MSS into families (particularly the Alexandrian) are given on pages 48 - 58 of "The Identity of the New Testament Text" (Hereafter abbreviated "INTT").

3. IS THERE A UNIFIED RECEIVED TEXT

If the 15% minority of extant MSS is hopeless confusion what about the 85% majority? What about the text referred to as Majority, Traditional, Byzantine, Syrian, Antiochan or Received?

In sharp contrast to the above two textual "families", the MSS which fall under the category of "Received", though differing in minor details, show a very definite unity. They are family members that get along quite well.

The textual critics have attempted to offset this fact through two arguments (1) genealogy and close copying (2) conflation and standardization.

(1) THE RECEIVED TEXT UNITY IS NOT THE RESULT CLOSE COPYING

The textual critic has sought to show that the large number of TR MSS are merely copies one of the other. This brings us to another basic "pillar" in the Westcott and Hort theory known as "Genealogy".
Colwell says of Hort's use of this method:

As the justification of their rejection of the majority, Westcott and Hort found the possibilities of genealogical method invaluable. Suppose that there are only ten copies of a document and that nine are all copies from one: then the majority can be safely rejected. Or suppose that the nine are copied from a lost manuscript and this lost manuscript and the other one were both copied from the original then the vote of the majority would not outweigh that of the minority. These are the arguments with which W. and H. opened their discussion of genealogical method ... They show clearly that a minority of manuscripts is not necessarily to be preferred correct. It is this prior possibility which Westcott and Hort used to demolish the argument based on the numerical superiority of the adherents of the Textus Receptus.

It is clear that the notion of genealogy is crucial to Hort's theory and purpose. He felt that the genealogical method enabled him to reduce the mass of manuscript testimony to four voice - "Neutral", "Alexandrian", "Western", and "Syrian". (INTT)

Textual research, however, has shown that the great mass of TR MSS are not merely copies one of another, but most are independent offspring of different lines of transmission which go deeply into the past.

I hope I have not worn some of you out by bringing all these details to light. We do not have to be experts in the Greek language and the MSS to understand the principles involved, and the history of the manuscripts and their transmission. In other words, one does not have to be a mechanic to thoroughly comprehend the production history and end quality of a Mercedes Benz. Or, on the other hand, of a car made poorly and not reliable.

If one wants to have a grasp of the issues, they are within reach of non-experts in Greek language and text criticism.

It will be easily seen that I have been promoting the Byzantine or Majority Texttype, and not the King James and its 1894 Greek Textus Receptus. That is because this is the foundation. The KJV/TR is one form of the Byz/MT texttype, and I believe the purest.

What I will hear is that I go against the Burgonian critical methodology (which informs all of Maurice Robinson’s judgment and work) by admitting readings apart from the Majority MSS, minority readings.

Shortly I will post Robinson and Pierpont’s disclaimer regarding those who use the Byz/MT to support the KJV/TR position (as I do), in the interest of full disclosure. What I do, I do in the face of my opponents.