200 deleted verses in modern critical Greek NT

Thank you for your reply, and if you sincerely want to look at supporting evidence, consider the following:

(1) discounting itacisms (spelling errors) and minor W.O.R.s, the most common accidental errors by scribes are haplography errors (eye-skips) and the majority of those are skips ahead (omissions) rather than skips backward (dittography).

E.C. Colwell is a well-recognized scholar who supports these observations with careful studies of individual manuscripts:

http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/SUPLEM/Colwell-Haplography… Colwell on Haplography in early MSS

(2) The question is, then, how many of the omissions adopted by modern versions show probable features of a homoeoteleuton-type error? (i.e., omission due to similar ending of consecutive lines)?

Since we started with Matthew, lets have a look at a few:

[img=400x] http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_BhV63rVYt1A/TOLAyI2XHhI/AAAAAAAAAAM/o2yHcA_im…

[img=400x] http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BhV63rVYt1A/TOLCq_fby2I/AAAAAAAAAAg/Gfqv3W23L…

These cases all have the obvious signs of homoeoteleuton, and the omissions also reflect the expected textual evidence: the omissions are all minority readings from the early period (late 2nd - early 3rd century), when most such errors would have been propagated.

We want to acknowledge that there is naturally quite a range of opinion on the issue of whether most significant NT textual variants are accidental, or deliberate editing.

Depending upon the context, and the scholar cited, we can find many critics on both sides of this issue, with some suggesting that most variants are deliberate (e.g. surprisingly, Dr. Maurice Robinsion, with qualifications) and others suggesting that most variants are accidental (e.g., Wallace, Witherington etc.).

Leaving that question open is probably the best approach, because such issues should be decided after examining the evidences, and not before.

On the other hand, for instance, we don’t want to give the impression that Colwell’s assessment of scribal habits is just quoting an out of date scholar. Colwell in many ways is the father of modern scientific research into scribal habits, and many others have since followed in his footsteps, investigating scribal habits.

Such respected scholars as Epp, Fee, Royse, Hurtado, and several others have all made very recent contributions to this field, and some of their most important findings can be read here:

http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Errors.html

These articles and excerpts can be explored at one’s leisure. Meanwhile, it is quite worthwhile to look at some important general facts.

(1) over 80 of the some 200 cases of significant omission have already been identified as probable homoeoteleuton errors on the basis of their physical features, and these Variation Units along with their textual support are available for examination here:

http://homoioteleuton.blogspot.com/ Homoioteleuton Blog

(2) Many of the other omissions have been associated with specific line-widths and known possible homoeoteleuton errors.

http://kjvonly2.blogspot.com/2011/01/ancestors-of-alephb-synoptics.html Ancestors of Aleph/B

This is a fascinating and new area of investigation, and is still ongoing.

[Eric R.] [quote Ed] Are textual critics right, in claiming that conjectured Greek ‘editors’ really added some 200 clauses to the NT, out of the blue?

Surely you are aware of the reasoning behind the theories of scribal additions from marginal notes, etc.Yes, I think we are aware of the theory that most supposed ‘additions’ (the texts in dispute) were semi-accidentally (mistakenly or mechanically) turned into text from marginal notes. The problem is, there has only ever been one demonstrable case of such, and that occurred in the 14th century! We have not only posted the details on this peculiar but famous case here, but the lack of power of this case in explaining 1,500 years of alleged ‘accumulation’ of scribal glosses has been discussed repeatedly by many.

http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AC/GA-3.html Dr. Krans on GA-3

http://kjvonly2.blogspot.com/2010/12/when-exception-does-not-prove-rule… When the Exception doesn’t Prove the Rule Pt. I

The story of ‘marginal glosses’ being incorporated into the text has no early textual support whatever, and remains glaringly unconvincing as an explanation for the 50 apparent omissions in Aleph/B listed below.

Further, the assertion that something in an older manuscript was “deleted” from a latter one doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, when you think about it.

I’m afraid you’ve lost me here. I’m not at all sure what you are referring to, or what “doesn’t make a whole lot of sense”.

I’ve thought about the fact that almost universally, scribes tended to accidentally omit significant material more often than they accidentally added it (there are of course agreed upon examples of each).

The key point is, if scribes did omit accidentally, even occasionally, and these errors were regularly promulgated in all other text-types, why haven’t any cases been ‘found’ in the Uncials Aleph/B, excepting the few obvious 1st generation singular errors? Do Hortians seriously want us to believe that the transmission line for Aleph/B miraculously never committed any omissions whatsoever? Even when it is widely acknowledged by all modern critics that they plainly also made the same mistakes as found in other text-types (such as the some 23 possible “Western non-interpolations” etc.)? …and that every other text-type did make those mistakes?

Why hasn’t a single one of the omissions found in Aleph/B been acknowledged by modern Hortian critics as a probable or even possible accidental homoeoteleuton error? Obviously some bias is in operation there.

“Significant doctrines and Christian understanding of them are certainly affected”

This statement is simply false and irresponsible. No significant Christian doctrine is affected by any textual variants.

If you’re going to claim this is “simply false”, you’ll have to do better than mere gainsaying.

Two doctrines have clearly been heavily discussed in the literature for at least 100 years, and have also been clearly modified and re-stated by various parties and denominations in the last 50 years.

(1) Verbal Plenary Inspiration is one doctrine which has clearly been heavily modifed, if not practically invented in the last century, as a direct result of claims and counter-claims regarding the Biblical text.

(2) Verbal Inerrancy is another similar doctrine which has very modern roots, and certainly does not resemble in the least the ideas and sentiments of the early Protestant reformers, as expressed in the Common Book of Prayer, the 39 Articles, or even the Westminster Confession.

Typically, Textual Critics like Daniel Wallace articulate a position in which only the original autographs are given ‘inspired’ status and are stated to be “without error”.

(2) Providential Preservation is another obvious doctrine which has suffered the same fate.

All three of these doctrines have been re-written and in some cases completely freshly articulated to the point where they would be unrecognizable to the first generation of Reformers. To claim that Christians held these beliefs “all along” is simply historical revisionism at work.

Whether or not the current formulations are “rational” and reasonable, or even true, is irrelevant to the point that they are *new* formulations unknown to the last 2,000 years worth of Christian believers.

But that is beside the point in this thread, because we are here concerned rather with the scientific plausibility of all of the chosen omissions in the modern ‘critical’ Greek text being original, and the thesis that all the ‘additions’ are non-original interpolations, insertions, scribal glosses etc.

The actual evidence suggests that at least some of these, if not many, are actually just scribal errors accumulated in the Alexandrian textual transmission-line behind Aleph and B.

Lets look at Luke. Here we have about 50 omissions, amounting to about three whole pages of deleted text. When examined closely however, almost a third of them have all the appearance of simple accidental homoeoteleuton errors. Are we to believe that not a single one of these, even the ones with blatant homoeoteleuton features, is an accidental error?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5rRafnSqujY/TUexNu5GZMI/AAAAAAAAAIE/EiAno3ejT…

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5rRafnSqujY/TUexO8Z_bdI/AAAAAAAAAII/OXolLlfz3…

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5rRafnSqujY/TUexQUdGxzI/AAAAAAAAAIM/m7NuZucGx…

The possible Homoeoteleuton errors are marked in GREEN above.

Lets have a closer look, to see why many are considered very probable errors, which must have occurred in the copying chain sometime before or at the time of their latest common shared ancestor:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BhV63rVYt1A/TPc4jxc4CvI/AAAAAAAAADQ/kiw6qxN89…

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BhV63rVYt1A/TPc611TBGdI/AAAAAAAAADU/GfScq8hYy…

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5rRafnSqujY/TSk53anpc3I/AAAAAAAAAFE/7C85B15zL…

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BhV63rVYt1A/TPc7fc0P8eI/AAAAAAAAADY/o8GbqwfoD…

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5rRafnSqujY/TS7V9tkwu_I/AAAAAAAAAFs/8T2N5tZhA…

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5rRafnSqujY/TSlETAKmmVI/AAAAAAAAAFI/A8DfPIz7U…

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5rRafnSqujY/TSn2Jam9uoI/AAAAAAAAAFQ/aOpHFsDKt…

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5rRafnSqujY/TSoABUz9W5I/AAAAAAAAAFU/qyhsb5G6U…

Its no shame to admit that at least a few of these many remarkable cases with strong homoeoteleuton features might be actual h.t. errors.

Each manuscript, both Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are literally riddled with singular blunders. We know they both contain many errors, because they contradict each other on thousands of occasions.

Why would we think that these two extant surviving manuscripts would preserve the text of a “perfect” copy, in spite of their own errors, when every known copy of the NT typically contains blunders every 3 to 6 verses?

Isn’t it more reasonable to assume that the common ancestor of Aleph/B also had a normal amount of copying errors, as does every other manuscript ever discovered?

[Greg Long] You never answered Eric’s point…

So the KJV translators were wrong to include textual variants in the margins?

Sorry, it seemed so insignificant, that I completely missed it. Lets stop and look:

[Eric] Early editions of the KJV contained several marginal notes referencing “some manuscripts.” Are these to be dismissed as terse and confusing?

The short answer is certainly.

Just because a terse, uninformative, and useless footnote happens to be found in the margin of the KJV, Bishop’s Bible, or Luther’s translation, doesn’t mean we suspend reality and call it brilliant, full-bodied, instructive and more than helpful.

The KJV notes are decorative junk, just like all terse footnotes in every Bible.

[ChrisC]

[Edward Miller] E.C. Colwell is a well-recognized scholar who supports these observations with careful studies of individual manuscripts

as best as i can tell, colwell isn’t advocating a return to traditional texts, but refining and building on the work of wescott and hort.

The fact that Colwell back in 1935 was still wearing Hort’s blinders isn’t really surprising. He should have followed his own ‘local’ findings to their global conclusion. He probably would have, if he had continued down the road he himself began. We fortunately, are in a different and better position, being able to look backward at many subsequent studies, which accumulatively not only reinforce what Colwell was discovering, but present overwhelming evidence at this point that scribes tended to omit, and omit frequently.

Talking about what Colwell advocated in 1968 as if he would be advocating it now, is not really appropriate. Undoubtedly Colwell would immediately modify his 1968 plea to revive Hort’s position, if he had available the data and conclusions that we do now, from Royse, Jongkind, Hernandez, and D.A. Carson.

We cited Colwell for his findings and his model studies on scribal habits, not for his popular opinions on Westcott and Hort. Colwell’s opinions on Hort are one thing (and they are ill-supported as it turns out). His data and conclusions about scribal habits are something quite different (they are based on hard facts, collated carefully).

[Chip Van Emmerik]

[Edward Miller] Why would we think that these two extant surviving manuscripts would preserve the text of a “perfect” copy, in spite of their own errors, when every known copy of the NT typically contains blunders every 3 to 6 verses?

So, which imperfect extant manuscripts are you suggesting we should follow? Or are you suggesting the church temporarily lost all copies of the perfect original language text, but God’s Word was restored by Divine preservation in translation to a receptor language?

Your question is wrongheaded, if we are really doing textual criticism for the purpose of reconstructing the original NT text, or determining the original readings.

We don’t “follow” manuscripts. We analyze them and come to conclusions about the most probable original readings. That other kind of thinking is the kind of thinking that got textual critics into trouble in the first place regarding how best to reconstruct the text. In the last 100 years, a lot has been learned by some, and blindly setting up favourite individual manuscripts as a ‘short-cut’ to the original text is now known by most to be a naive approach and a practical disaster.

I’m not suggesting anything at the moment but evaluating Variation Units, and collections of groupable Variation Units, for plausibility and probability as to which variants within each are the most likely readings to be original. When the physical features and textual evidence preponderates in the direction of indicating that a ‘shorter reading’ is not a case of a deliberate addition of a ‘scribal gloss’ from a conjectural margin, but rather a simple and common omission by haplographic error, we should probably go with that evidence, until there is some compelling reason to do otherwise.

The days of “following favourite manuscripts” is long over.

Citing Colwell’s Data and Findings, not Colwell

[ChrisC]

[Edward Miller] Talking about what Colwell advocated in 1968 as if he would be advocating it now, is not really appropriate. Undoubtedly Colwell would immediately modify his 1968 plea to revive Hort’s position, if he had available the data and conclusions that we do now, from Royse, Jongkind, Hernandez, and D.A. Carson.

if you wanted to cite these guys you could have skipped colwell several posts ago and done so. for that matter, you could have even cited metzger. he acknowledges that length alone does not determine the authenticity of a reading:

http://books.google.com/books?id=NrEeAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA184

Not sure what your point is. Mine is clear. Colwell’s data and findings support the probability that the longer readings of the traditional text are original, with much more probability than the omissions of Aleph/B, especially those with homoeoteleuton features.

Your phraseology however seems to fall into the perennial problem of personality cults rather than science. The opinions of scholars are held to be more important, somehow, than their actual data and findings, even when they are not based on science, or contradict their own findings.

Who cares what textual critics think? What evidence do they have, and what does it really mean? That is the relevant question.

I couldn’t “skip Colwell”, since I wanted his data. The data is valid. Colwell isn’t relevant to anything, except insofar as he hands over scientific information. Then we can send him packing.

See below:

anyway, your first post makes it seem like there is scholarly support for preferring the traditional texts. i ask for some evidence, and you give colwell. then you give a few more recent scholars that validate longer readings, but do any of them say that the traditional texts should be preferred? as far as i can tell, they also follow a kind of textual criticism that certainly would lead to differences from the traditional texts.

Your statements here are good as far as they go, but they miss the whole point of reliable scientific inquiry. Who cares what Colwell thinks for instance? I don’t quote his opinions for support or at all, because they are essentially worthless without scientific data.

I reference Colwell’s data and findings, because they qualify as scientific and useful facts.

Being able to parse the difference between these ideas is the essence of doing science, as opposed to putting fallible men on pedestals, and giving credence to opinion over unverified facts.

For me and every other scientist, “scholarly support” doesn’t mean “scholarly opinion”, which is superfluous and often misleading. “scholarly support” means, what data and reliable scientific findings did the scholars publish, that are independently verifiable, for instance through independent collation and inspection of photographs and texts.

so was your opening about traditional vs. modern texts just there to stir things up? did you really mean to say that there is scholarly support for the superiority (and maybe even perfection) of traditional texts? or did you only mean to have a discussion about whether the shorter reading is always best?

I not only meant to say that there is “scholarly support” in the scientific sense for the traditional text, but I demonstrated that scholarly support by linking to scholarly facts and findings published by scholars. Whether or not those same scholars openly or privately agree or disagree with my conclusions about their data is an entirely different question, and one that is irrelevant to the facts and what they mean in regard to the traditional text.

If you want to debate, or especially challenge my claim regarding the traditional text, then let us by all means discuss the relevant facts and findings, and whether or not they support my claim or not. Lets talk about the actual texts, and their physical features. Lets talk about evidence of readings and plausibility of textual history.

But there is no point in discussing the opinions of textual critics, because their opinions are regularly without any scientific foundation, and they often make statements that are out of their area of expertise and knowledge or experience. To put it bluntly, who cares what textual critics think? What we want to know is what work they have done and what facts have they found, not what opinions they think they want to express.

Real science isn’t about the cult of academia, its about seeking truth above reputations, political interests, or ideological concerns.

[ChrisC] there are a lot of the best biblical scholars that have been producing bible translation with the best available information, including publications from the scholars you mentioned and have come to different conclusions about the merits of including the items in your list of “omissions”. i won’t be just taking the word of some random person from the internet that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Quite a reasonable statement, and position to take. I’m not seeking “true-believers”, but asking fellow researchers interested in new data to take a second look.

In the end, however, it won’t be anyone’s reputation that matters on these issues, but rather what new evidence can be brought to bear on the problem.

i didn’t carefully go through your whole list of “omissions”, but the first item in your list isn’t even listed as an alternate reading in a footnote in any modern translations. so there must be some very good reason for not including it.

Sadly, there are a great many undocumented changes to the text in both the modern critical Greek NT, such as the NA27 and UBS2 etc., and naturally also all the translations uncritically based on those published texts.

Keep in mind that the translators of many modern versions have simply taken the UBS text at face value, and assumed (as per advertizing blurb) that the UBS apparatus contains “all the important variants of interest to translators”. Of course this is an obvious judgment call, if not a rather fraudulent claim.

Indeed, the original Westcott/Hort text was more honest in this respect, because it documented far more changes by using a bracket-system, although no apparatus at all was given, but rather a 2nd volume containing Hort’s Introduction and a discussion of many readings.

The UBS text does in fact leave out of the apparatus hundreds of serious alterations they have made to the text. I have documented a great many of them.

Just because the UBS text has left out the variant or Variation Unit, along with the manuscript support, does not mean at all that the variant is not important, or doesn’t significantly alter the text in size and meaning.

Your faith in the UBS apparatus is nonetheless very sadly misplaced. It is not at all a reliable indicator of significant variants, or a complete apparatus or even complete citing of the MSS they have chosen to follow. The actual readings of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for instance cannot be reconstructed from the UBS apparatus.

If you want to see what the REAL variation among the MSS is (even the important Uncials), you’ll have to turn back to Tischendorf’s 8th edition, which has a reasonably complete apparatus citing fairly thoroughly the MS evidence known in 1860. You’ll notice right away that Tischendorf’s apparatus is about 10 times the size of the UBS apparatus.

It is in fact impossible to do serious textual critical research without either a copy of Tischendorf, or Merk, or von Soden.

Student editions like Nestle/Aland, or UBS are just toys.

my first response above was not asking for scholars that agreed with some of your basic assumptions. i was asking for publications by scholars that agreed with your conclusion.

You’re asking too much then. New conclusions would require new publications. Those will probably occur in an undetermined future, if Jesus doesn’t return first.

Book publication itself is going the way of the Dodo bird. Almost all the edge-cutting and new research is taking place directly on the net now.

Here are some blogs that can help you keep up:

http://nttextualcriticism.blogspot.com/

http://pericopedeadultera.blogspot.com/

http://nazaroo.blogspot.com/

http://kjvonly2.blogspot.com/

http://homoioteleuton.blogspot.com/

http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/

http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/

http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/

http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/articles.htm#Accuracy

http://vuntblog.blogspot.com/

http://tcgnt.blogspot.com/

[ChrisC] blogs are self-published and generally not rigorously peer-reviewed. maybe it’s the wikipedia editor in me, but i need a reliable source.

I don’t think you realize the full gravity of the situation.

Its not even that critical Greek texts omit dozens of half-verses. Its that they do this without telling the reader, the translators, or the public the extent of the alterations.

The very definition of “reliable” means honesty, openness, and transparency regarding purpose and motives. All of these are entirely missing from the work of textual critics and editors of the New Testament.

Their very work demonstrates beyond doubt that they are NOT reliable, and can’t be trusted to report honestly about what they are foisting on the public and Christian readers.

Here’s a sample of the completely undocumented mutilations of the NT text, which find their way readily into modern versions, also without so much as a footnote indicating text has been ripped out or drastically altered. In the following list “MV” means Modern Versions collectively, although one or two might have a note where the majority have nothing at all:

Matt. 15:8 UBS2 undocumented ΤΩ ΣΤΟΜΑΤΙ αυτων και

Matt. 20:7 UBS2 undocumented και ο εαν η δικαιον ληψεσθε

Matt. 20:16 UBS2 undocumented πολλοι γαρ εισιν κλητοι ολιγοι δε εκλεκτοι

Matt. 20:22 UBS2 undocumented το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθηναι…

και το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθησεσθε

Mark 11:8 UBS2 undocumented KΑI ΕΣTΡΩNNΥON ΕIΣ THN OΔON

Mark 12:33 UBS2 undocumented KΑI ΕΞ OΛHΣ THΣ ΨΥXH

Luke 4:5 UBS2 undocumented O ΔIΑΒOΛOΣ ΕIΣ OΡOΣ ΥΨHΛON

Luke 17:9 UBS2 undocumented (αυτω)

Luke 19:45 UBS2 undocumented εν αυτω και αγοραζοντας

Luke 22:68 MV undocumented μοι η απολυσητε

John 5:16 UBS2 undocumented και  εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι

John 6:11 UBS2 undocumented τοις μαθηταις οι δε μαθηται

John 8:59-9:2 MV undocumented και διελθων δια μεσου αυτων [επορευετο] και παρηγεν ουτως

John 11:41 UBS2 undocumented ου ην  ο τεθνηκως  κειμενος

John 17:12 UBS2 undocumented εν τω κοσμω

BY THE WAY, ALL OF THE ABOVE EXAMPLES ARE HOMOEOTELEUTON ERRORS.

Instead of spouting how ‘unlikely’ it might be for scholars to be wrong, dishonest, or have a hidden agenda, instead of seeking the opinions of “scholars”, try this:

Read the mutilations for yourself, and answer the question for yourself if these deletions and mutilations are “significant” or not. Don’t rely on modern academia.

Use your own brain, man. Use your own mind. If you’re skeptical about Wikipedia, then you should be doubly skeptical about modern academia.

all your comments about the weakness of the ubs may affect casual readers, but it’s crazy to think that of all the best scholars contributing to modern translations, none of them know about these weaknesses and none of them use other more detailed tools.

Yes. Its crazy to think that modern academics mutilate the Bible unknowingly.

Its also crazy to think they do this without an anti-Christian agenda.

Just ask Bart Ehrman, a great example of what modern academia regards as authoritative, and will put in a position of power to publish [Edited] .

Lets look at the actual evidence that these are all homoeoteleuton errors:

Matt. 15:8 UBS2 undocumented ΤΩ ΣΤΟΜΑΤΙ αυτων και

εγγιζει μοι ο λαος ουτος

ΤΩ Στοματι αυτων και (homoeoARCTON)

ΤΟΙΣ χειλεσιν με τιμα η

δε καρδια αυτων πορρω

απεχει απ εμου

Matt. 20:7 UBS2 undocumented και ο εαν η δικαιον ληψεσθε

        …λεγουσιν

αυτω οτι ουδεις ημας εμισθ-

ωσατο λεγει αυτοις υπαγετε

και υμεις εις τον αμπελωνα

και ο εαν η δικαιον ληψεσθε (homoeoARCTON)

Matt. 20:16 UBS2 undocumented πολλοι γαρ εισιν κλητοι ολιγοι δε εκλεκτοι

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BhV63rVYt1A/TOLCq_fby2I/AAAAAAAAAAg/Gfqv3W23L…

Matt. 20:22 UBS2 undocumented το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθηναι…και το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθησεσθε

αποκριθεις δε ο ιησους ειπεν ουκ

οιδατε τι αιτεισθε δυνασθε πιειν

το ποτηριον ο εγω μελλω πινειν η

το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθηναι

λεγουσιν αυτω δυναμεθα

και λεγει αυτοις,  το μεν  ποτηριον μου  πιεσθε

και το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθησεσθε

το δε καθισαι εκ δεξιων μου και εξ ευωνυμων μου

ουκ εστιν εμον δουναι αλλ οις

ητοιμασται υπο του πατρος μου

Don’t think for a minute that these are the bulk of the story. These are only a small sample. I can find twice that many in the rest of the NT.

Why? Why would these editors knowingly (for they can’t have deleted all these half-verses while sleep-walking) follow readings that are all HOMOEOTELEUTON errors, and at the same time keep it a carefully guarded secret?

Because if public attention was called to these, it would suddenly become obvious that the SOURCE of these boners were not the “oldest and best” MSS that Hort claimed, and their “agreement” would only mean what opponents have been saying for years:

Agreements between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are agreements in error, pointing to a common archetype all right, but reducing their “independent witness” to one early error-ridden piece of Alexandrian “moo flap”.

The truth is, Hort was greedy. In his rush to “dethrone” the Textus Receptus, he overdid it, incorporating every omission he could find and justify by a lot of handwaving, no matter how ludicrous the example was.

He would have been more successful, and more convincing as an expert textual critic, if only he hadn’t padded his case with a bunch of blatantly stupid extras.

He could have quietly sabotaged the Protestant world with much less effort, and more lasting results.

But he was essentially stupid. His talent was more suited to checkers than chess.

completely undocumented mutilations of the NT text, which find their way readily into modern versions, also without so much as a footnote indicating text has been ripped out or drastically altered. In the following list “MV” means Modern Versions collectively, although one or two might have a note where the majority have nothing at all:

Matt. 15:8 UBS2 undocumented ΤΩ ΣΤΟΜΑΤΙ αυτων και

Matt. 20:7 UBS2 undocumented και ο εαν η δικαιον ληψεσθε

Matt. 20:16 UBS2 undocumented πολλοι γαρ εισιν κλητοι ολιγοι δε εκλεκτοι

Matt. 20:22 UBS2 undocumented το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθηναι…

και το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθησεσθε

Mark 11:8 UBS2 undocumented KΑI ΕΣTΡΩNNΥON ΕIΣ THN OΔON

Mark 12:33 UBS2 undocumented KΑI ΕΞ OΛHΣ THΣ ΨΥXH

Luke 4:5 UBS2 undocumented O ΔIΑΒOΛOΣ ΕIΣ OΡOΣ ΥΨHΛON

Luke 17:9 UBS2 undocumented (αυτω)

Luke 19:45 UBS2 undocumented εν αυτω και αγοραζοντας

Luke 22:68 MV undocumented μοι η απολυσητε

John 5:16 UBS2 undocumented και  εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι

John 6:11 UBS2 undocumented τοις μαθηταις οι δε μαθηται

John 8:59-9:2 MV undocumented και διελθων δια μεσου αυτων [επορευετο] και παρηγεν ουτως

John 11:41 UBS2 undocumented ου ην  ο τεθνηκως  κειμενος

John 17:12 UBS2 undocumented εν τω κοσμω

BY THE WAY, ALL OF THE ABOVE EXAMPLES ARE HOMOEOTELEUTON ERRORS.

Instead of spouting how ‘unlikely’ it might be for scholars to be wrong, dishonest, or have a hidden agenda,

Open a copy of the UBS text, and see if they deleted the half-verses or not.

Check the apparatus, and see if they documented the alterations or not.

Check for yourself, and answer the question for yourself.

These aren’t just Majority Text and Byzantine text-type readings.

They are readings that have been in the NT text in both Greek and Latin for 1000 years.

The point still stands:

Its not that they altered the verses: its that they altered the verses without telling the reader.

What is your definition of honest?

[Aaron Blumer] So your beef is with the apparatus?

Let’s drop the homeoteleuton thing. It’s clutter. What matters is “errors.”

uh oh, it looks like we’re headed toward misdirection again.

Lets try again to describe clearly and concisely the problem(s).

(1) In the 1600s, collators of hand-copies who were preparing printed versions noticed some variant readings among the manuscripts being used as master-copies, and began studying them and collecting readings along with their support in the form of manuscripts, patristic quotations and ‘versions’ (early translations).

(2) By the 1800s, the Germans and English rationalists (mainly Unitarians) voiced a concern that the traditional Christian text had been corrupted, presumably by Roman Catholics and Trinitarians. They set about looking for versions and readings that would support the reconstruction of an Alternate Text, which they expected would be free of “Romish superstitions” and of course, Trinitarian readings.

(3) Assuming that most of the alleged ancient alterations were in the form of deliberate theologically motivated additions (supporting the Deity of Christ, Trinitarian Deism, the Eucharist etc.), these 19th century critics formulated rules or canons like “Prefer the shorter reading” and “Prefer older reading” for the purpose of easily ejecting traditional readings in favour of newly discovered variants in old manuscripts.

(4) The shortest possible text that could be reconstructed, presumably most free from “Romish” and Trinitarian interpolations, but still based on “hard evidence” (i.e., ancient manuscripts) was constructed, by Westcott & Hort (1881) and used as the basis of the Revised Version (1882).

(5) In the end however, this text wasn’t much different from the Traditional text that had been in use for a thousand years, and appeared just as “corrupt” as the text used by the KJV translators (the Textus Receptus). Unitarians and Deists then essentially either abandoned Christianity entirely and became agnostics or atheists, or else fled back into the arms of Rome. The Anglican Church was essentially gutted, as believers formed new denominations and doubters became secular humanists.

(6) Protestants regrouped and backed the new “critical Greek text”, because it appeared to have been made based on rational and historical-critical principles (this however, was actually false). This new (early 20th century) generation of Protestants intended to forge a new “Rational Christianity” in which Christianity would not be portrayed as a religion full of superstitious and incomprehensible notions, but would be a kind of new objective philosophy, based partly on revelation and partly on reason.

(7) Reason was emphasized, especially by the American Protestants like the Presbyterians and evolving Evangelist movement. Suddenly, what were formerly considered essential and mainstream doctrines became “optional” viewpoints, not worth breaking fellowship for. Many standard Christian doctrines were simply left up to the individual conscience, like the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, Atonement, Original Sin, Ransom, the Eucharist, etc.

(8) The new Ecumenical Movement emphasized unity over doctrinal quarrels and questions, and left most Christians in a very tolerant, but ill-defined limbo.

Given this historical background, the behavior of those seeking to edit and modify the Bible is a very important topic, because textual criticism was not a ‘benign’, undirected activity and open investigative procedure, but rather a very directed, driven group of people with a very purposeful agenda, which involved a much larger sympathy for Unitarian theories and doctrines, fringe semi-Christian sects, and of course a desire for Ecumenical unity or at least mutual tolerance between competing ideological factions and denominational parties.

I’ve always had the impression that the apparatuses in NA27 UBS etc were not exhaustive.

I guess it would be dishonest if there was a place where you claim to have listed all variants and you intentionally didn’t list them all.

But it would not be dishonest if you a) accidentally omitted some or b) never claimed to be listing them all.

This is where we must part company with your fuzzy thinking.



When someone openly proposes to edit the text used by Christians for a thousand years, any changes they make to the text must absolutely be documented, to prevent confusion over what parts of the text are agreed upon and not under dispute, and those parts of the text which someone wishes to change. Its the only scientific, open, and transparent way to operate.

Also, your assertions seem to presuppose that a variant that doesn’t match the “traditional text” is an “error.” How do you know these alleged cases of error are error vs. the correct reading?

We don’t presuppose anything at all. We investigate the evidence, in particular, what is known about scribal habits and common errors, and choose the explanations which account for the evidence on the basis of the highest probability, likelihood, or ability to account most completely for all the variants known to exist.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Edward Miller wrote: When someone openly proposes to edit the text used by Christians for a thousand years,

Someone has already brought this up, but it has been neglected so far.

You base your entire argument on the assumption that the TR is the one Greek text against which everything else must pass muster. This is just an updated version of the same old assumption that KJVO adherents have used for 50 years.

Sorry, Chip, but I really have to draw the line on this remark.

(1) I’m not “basing my entire argument” on any assumptions at all. As a scientist, I may begin an investigation with some reasonable assumptions for purposes of efficiency and in the hope of fruitful discovery. I never base conclusions on assumptions however, or attempt to debate using them. I prefer historical, scientific, and logical evidences. The only ‘assumptions’ I habitually use are of the most general kind, and involve an objective reality that most scientists believe they share with all realists. My current arguments are based on the facts of the textual evidence alone.

(2) I’m not by any stretch of the imagination “King James Only”, and I do not have any interest in defending the ‘TR’. I make no assumptions about those texts, nor do I push them on others. I don’t even use the KJV myself. I personally prefer to ‘rely on’ the original languages, Hebrew and Greek, but heavily consult the translations of others into English, because that historically is my “first language”. My preference among English translations is Young’s Literal translation, which is more than adequate for most purposes. However I often in specific cases do my own translating, at least for myself.

(3) I couldn’t care less what KJO advocates do. But I know what I do. I don’t rely upon or debate with, or sell assumptions. I use scientific investigation methods to determine the probability of various historical explanations of existing evidence, like variant readings, and printed texts.

(4) I have no interest in using the ‘TR’ as a standard of quality against which to measure other texts, critical or otherwise. If I had to align myself with any position at all, it would be something like that of Sturz or more recently Dr. Maurice Robinson, who both have come to recognize the value of the Byzantine text-type, against the attitude prevailing among some textual critics, particularly in the past 80 years. Like those two researchers, I began with a skeptical attitude toward the Traditional (Byzantine) text-type, but have come to the conclusion that it is much more reliable and accurate than it is often given credit for. My opinion however, is not based on any ideological or religious position, but simply upon the textual evidence as found. Like Dr. Robinson, I began with a cautious and skeptical view of variant readings and various explanations, but began to make tentative conclusions through the results of analysis.

(5) The popular text most used by Christians between 600 - 1600 A.D. is not in serious dispute. It is acknowledged that however few MSS Erasmus used for his ‘TR’, they were as it turns out quite representative of the majority of MSS produced in the period in question. Likewise, although the Latin Vulgate may differ in a few places from the TR, it is all but identical to it, especially in regard to the some 200 verses and half-verses of which this thread is all about. The Latins produced some 10,000 copies of the NT in Latin, the vast majority of which agree substantially with the TR with only a few exceptions, and these MSS go back to the 2nd century. It is therefore very misdirecting or disengenious of you to suggest that the TR might not represent the basic Christian text used by Christians all over the Empire for the last thousand years before the printed Bible era, and this includes both Greek and Latin readers.

(6) But that is not even my argument, or the purpose of this thread, and for you to misdirect the discussion to this issue, is just an attempt to derail the thread and turn it into a “KJVOnly Debate”, which has nothing to do with my thread or my purpose. A poor, misguided, and ultimately unsuccessful attack, as far as I can determine.

(7) Adopting the Byzantine Text as a base is scientifically the most intelligent and efficient choice. This has nothing to do with the quality of the Byzantine text, and everything to do with efficient scientific method. If we are going to collate all the evidence, including manuscripts, early Christian writers, and versions, then adopting the “Majority Text” as a base is the only intelligent thing to do. Not that I care if you want to be unintelligent and unefficient, you can do what you like with your own time and energy. Why would I care?

If you want to know why adopting a ‘minority text’ as a base is stupid, read the scientific arguments here:

http://adultera.awardspace.com/AG/Base-Text.html Why Use a Base-text, and what to Choose <- - Click Here.

Then it was comparison of English translations to the KJV. Claiming the TR has been in use for thousands of years is as blatantly false as claiming that Peter (or Paul or whatever NT character might work for the moment) whipped out his King James as he preached at Pentecost.

I don’t want to say what Peter might have “whipped out” and when, but I find your language crude and offensive. It serves no constructive purpose for this discussion.

Okay lets get back to business:

[Aaron] Let’s drop the homeoteleuton thing. It’s clutter. What matters is “errors.”

Of course this makes no sense. homoeoteleuton ARE errors. We can’t avoid one without avoiding the other.

So lets get down to the facts:

(1) Westcott/Hort (WH, 1882), Nestle/Aland (NA27 etc.), and the UBS Greek NT all drop about 200 whole and half verses from the traditional text. For our purposes, all three texts are pretty much identical, especially in regard to omitting text in these particular 200 cases.

Here are some charts for comparison:

http://adultera.awardspace.com/AF/Omissions.html Omissions List with Apparatus <- - - Click Here.

(2) Over 80 of the 200 cases (a whopping 40%) show obvious signs of being accidental homoeoteleuton errors. Why even argue about it? The pictures tell 1000 words on this subject.

Take a look at the slideshow here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56593452@N05/sets/72157625520570602/ Homoeoteleuton Slideshow <- - - Click Here.

(3) The other 120 cases show another common but otherwise inexplicable feature: They are all multiples of common popular column-widths, suggesting they are also largely eye-skips where a scribe has dropped a line or two in copying.

http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AG/Aleph-B-Ancestors.html Column-Width in Matthew <- - - Click here.

(4) Many of the changes have gone undocumented by both the UBS Greek text and modern English translations based on it. We have given 15 cases above, but could easily double that. Failing to document changes to the text is a dishonest and neglectful procedure.

(5) If 40% of omissions are probable homoeoteleuton errors, and the rest also seem to have features that strongly suggest they are also accidental omissions due to haplography (eye-skips), it is likely that the “new” critical Greek text is wrong about half the time or more, when it comes to omissions of significant portions of the text.

(6) The conclusions are obvious:

(a) The last hundred years of textual criticism have not significantly advanced the actual reconstruction of the text: it hasn’t really changed since Hort hacked it up in 1882.

(b) All the efforts of textual criticism have done nothing but mess up the text and move if further away from the original autographs.

QED.

[Aaron Blumer] Ed, I’m trying to get clear on exactly what your beef is, …

Fair question I suppose. Lets see if we can sort it out shall we?

I probably have many beefs. The title of this thread however, is the intended focus here.

Note that the “200 verses/half-verses” referred to are deleted in the UBS GREEK critical text, not English translations.

That having been said, (i.e., trying to get back to the topic), lets deal with your question below:

But I still can’t get past this:

if there are “’200 deleted verses,” why don’t these holes show up in translations?

If you side by side kjv and esv for example, you do not find 200 whole or half verses missing in esv.

So is it your view that a hundred or so missing from TR also?

How are the missing verses getting back into these translations?

The UBS(2nd to 4th ed.) and Nestle/Aland (26th/ 27th ed.) are the Greek text(s) used as the basis, by the majority of modern English translations.

As a result, many if not most, of the deletions made by these two modern ‘critical Greek NT’s pretty much automatically end up being adopted by most modern translations.

However, it is not always cut and dry, and often, the deletions are simply too extreme and unacceptable for the editorial committees of certain modern versions. For instance, the NIV, being largely Evangelical and American, found it politically difficult, if not theologically and or historically implausible, to adopt many of the suggested readings of the UBS/NA text. Not least because their potential readers and buyers would have simply bypassed on purchasing the NIV.

In some cases (i.e., the RSV 1952,66,NRSV 1990), people like Metzger were well aware of major changes, and the committees engaged in heated discussions as to whether to follow the UBS/NA text or stick to the traditional text, on a case-by-case basis.

In other cases (i.e., TEV), its unlikely that anyone in charge had a clue about textual-critical issues or the consequences of adopting the UBS/NA text instead of the Traditional text, and they simply and naively plowed ahead using the critical text.

Sometimes therefore, a given modern translation will have a few more traditional readings, or a few more omissions than its rival. However, collectively, most modern translations follow most of the omissions and edits of the critical text, which is what they tend to use as a base-text for translating.

The answer then as to how some verses are “getting back in” to the text, is simple. For political reasons, for reasons of timing, for reasons of theological preference, some traditional readings find their way back into the text, although most do not.

For instance, the NAS, RSV, NIV and TNIV, all follow the WH/UBS/NA26 text 95% of the time, in regard to the 75 homoeoteleuton errors we have listed here:

[url] http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AF/Omissions.html