200 deleted verses in modern critical Greek NT
Forum category
Anyone with some experience in comparing modern versions (NIV, ESV etc.) and traditional texts (KJV, Douay-Reims, etc.) is aware of two basic facts:
(1) Different Base Text
(a) Modern texts in the main follow the critical Greek texts, such as Westcott/Hort (WH, 1882), Nestle/Aland (NA27, e.g. 27th ed.), or the United Bible Soc. text (UBS4 etc.)
(b) Traditional texts mainly follow the traditional Greek text popular from about 500 A.D. to the 1880s, e.g., the Textus Receptus (Scrivener), Hodges/Farstad (Majority Text), Robinson/Pierpont (Byzantine Text).
(2) Deleted Verses
(a) Modern versions on the basis of the ‘critical Greek text’ bracket some 200 whole and half-verses, put them in the margin or footnotes, or delete them entirely.
(b) These edits are often accompanied by terse footnotes extolling “the oldest and best manuscripts” and casting doubt on the traditional text.
Such ‘changes in policy’ put the reliability and content of the New Testament in doubt in the minds of many readers and Bible students. Significant doctrines and Christian understanding of them are certainly affected, as Christians are inevitably confronted with such issues, and Christians are often completely uninformed on the details and unprepared to deal sensibly and effectively with these issues.
As an example of the rather drastic extent of such modern editing, consider the following list of omissions by the major critical versions:
verse whole/half-verses omitted in Matthew’s Gospel: WH SBL
(1) Different Base Text
(b) Traditional texts mainly follow the traditional Greek text popular from about 500 A.D. to the 1880s, e.g., the Textus Receptus (Scrivener), Hodges/Farstad (Majority Text), Robinson/Pierpont (Byzantine Text).
(2) Deleted Verses
(b) These edits are often accompanied by terse footnotes extolling “the oldest and best manuscripts” and casting doubt on the traditional text.
Such ‘changes in policy’ put the reliability and content of the New Testament in doubt in the minds of many readers and Bible students. Significant doctrines and Christian understanding of them are certainly affected, as Christians are inevitably confronted with such issues, and Christians are often completely uninformed on the details and unprepared to deal sensibly and effectively with these issues.
As an example of the rather drastic extent of such modern editing, consider the following list of omissions by the major critical versions:
verse whole/half-verses omitted in Matthew’s Gospel: WH SBL
- 5:27 τοις αρχαιοις Om Om ·
- 5:44 (a) ευλογειτε τους καταρωμενους υμας καλως ποιειτε τους μισουντας υμας Om Om ⸀
- 5:44 (b) επηρεαζοντων υμας και Om Om ⸀
- 6:13 οτι σου εστιν η βασιλεια και η δυναμις και η δοξα εις τους αιωνας αμην Om Om ⸀
- 12:47 (whole verse) Om In ⸢ ⸣
- 13:51 λεγει αυτοις ο ιησους Om Om ⸀
- 15:5-6 η την μητερα αυτου (h.t.) Om Om ·
- 15:8 τω στοματι αυτων και Om Om ⸢ ⸣
- 19:9 καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχᾶται Om In ⸢ ⸣
- 19:20 -μην εκ νεοτητος μου Om Om ·
- 20:7 και ο εαν η δικαιον ληψεσθε Om Om ⸢
- 20:16 πολλοι γαρ εισιν κλητοι ολιγοι δε εκλεκτοι Om Om ⸢
- 20:22 και το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθηναι Om Om ⸢
- 20:23 και το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθησεσθε Om Om ⸢
- 22:13 αρατε αυτον και εκβαλετε / εκβαλετε αυτον Om Om ⸢ ⸣
- 23:4 και δυσβαστακτα Om Om ⸢ ⸣
- 23:5 των ιματιων αυτων Om Om ⸀
- 25:13 εν η ο υιος του ανθρωπου ερχεται Om Om ⸀
- 26:3 και οι γραμματεις Om Om ⸀
- 26:60 προσελθοντων ουχ ευρον Om Om ⸀
- 27:35b ινα πληρωθη το ρηθεν υπο του προφητου διεμερισαντο τα ιματια μου εαυτοις και επι τον ιματισμον μου εβαλον κληρον Om Om *
- 28:2 απο της θυρας Om Om ⸀
- 28:9 ως δε επορευοντο απαγγειλαι τοις μαθηταις αυτου Om Om ⸀
23 Variation Units: SBL and W/H = 96% agreement in Matthew
__________________________________________
Are textual critics right, in claiming that conjectured Greek ‘editors’ really added some 200 clauses to the NT, out of the blue? Should Christians allow modern academics to so drastically edit our Bibles as to delete nearly 5 pages of text?
This is the issue I would like to explore with others here in the Bible forum.
Ed Miller
- 122 views
But you cannot find 200 “whole or half verses” missing.This I think is a moot point, because the discrepancy is not very large.
It is a quite fair and accurate statement to estimate the number of whole/half verses as 200 in the critical Greek texts, although a few are bracketed rather than relegated to footnotes.
It is also quite fair to estimate that the average modern version follows suit about 90% of the time, giving on average 180 missing chunks of text, or about 3 and a half pages, in some cases approximating an entire short letter of Paul.
Far too much text to pretend that no questions are raised, or no harm is done to people’s faith and viewpoint, especially when these deletions are for the most part accompanied with uninformative but doubt-inspiring footnotes as to the authenticity of the text under dispute.
Jn 7:53-8:11 is authentic John: http://adultera.awardspace.com
Lets look more closely at the process of using the Greek text to produce an English translation.
The translators, when they come across a significant alteration to the traditional text, have a variety of options they can follow:
(1) Ignore the change, and continue the text with the traditional reading, without any note.
(2) Adopt the traditional reading, but add an explanatory note justifying the choice not to follow the critical text.
(3) Adopt the traditional reading, but note the alternate critical reading in margin or footnotes, without commitment to either reading.
(4) Adopt the traditional reading in the text, but add a footnote suggesting the probability of the critical reading and provide its text.
(5) Adopt the traditional reading but bracket the text, and add a note as to its doubtulness in preference to the critical text.
(6) Adopt the critical text, but bracket this, and note the traditional reading in the margin or footnotes, without commitment.
(7) Adopt the critical text, but footnote it, and provide the traditional text in margin, explaining the preference for the choice.
(8) Adopt the critical text without any footnote or comment, and not inform the reader that (a) there is a significant discrepancy, and dispute.
In most cases, modern English versions adopt (7) and more rarely (8), but are increasingly adopting (8) as a cover-up strategy.
The most appropriate and scientific choice is quite plainly (3) however. And this is what honesty and transparency should automatically require.
A few of the more recent modern versions are actually switching to this tactic, providing more neutral notes, with less hype.
The translators, when they come across a significant alteration to the traditional text, have a variety of options they can follow:
(1) Ignore the change, and continue the text with the traditional reading, without any note.
(2) Adopt the traditional reading, but add an explanatory note justifying the choice not to follow the critical text.
(3) Adopt the traditional reading, but note the alternate critical reading in margin or footnotes, without commitment to either reading.
(4) Adopt the traditional reading in the text, but add a footnote suggesting the probability of the critical reading and provide its text.
(5) Adopt the traditional reading but bracket the text, and add a note as to its doubtulness in preference to the critical text.
(6) Adopt the critical text, but bracket this, and note the traditional reading in the margin or footnotes, without commitment.
(7) Adopt the critical text, but footnote it, and provide the traditional text in margin, explaining the preference for the choice.
(8) Adopt the critical text without any footnote or comment, and not inform the reader that (a) there is a significant discrepancy, and dispute.
In most cases, modern English versions adopt (7) and more rarely (8), but are increasingly adopting (8) as a cover-up strategy.
The most appropriate and scientific choice is quite plainly (3) however. And this is what honesty and transparency should automatically require.
A few of the more recent modern versions are actually switching to this tactic, providing more neutral notes, with less hype.
Jn 7:53-8:11 is authentic John: http://adultera.awardspace.com
[Edward Miller] 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.
[Edward Miller] Lets look more closely at the process of using the Greek text to produce an English translation.I am genuinely puzzled at the science references like these. Why is #3 a “scientific choice”? More generally, how are you employing the scientific method in this study? Why should these inquiries not be viewed fundamentally as historical inquiries rather than scientific ones?
The translators, when they come across a significant alteration to the traditional text, have a variety of options they can follow:
(3) Adopt the traditional reading, but note the alternate critical reading in margin or footnotes, without commitment to either reading.
The most appropriate and scientific choice is quite plainly (3) however. And this is what honesty and transparency should automatically require.
As the quantity of communication increases, so does its quality decline; and the most important sign of this is that it is no longer acceptable to say so.--RScruton
To bring some things together here…. if I read your last several posts right, Ted, they’ve included these items:
As for “scientific,” Brent, I suspect what Ed means in this case is “evidenced based.” So, in that sense, historical inquiry is a science.
But I’d disagree w/Ed that option 3 is more scientific. You have to have a prior bias in favor of the traditional text to see that solution as the ideal. If you look at all the “texts” on an equal footing, it’s not so easy to decide how note the discrepancies, especially in a translation. So should we be biased in favor of the traditional text? There have been some good arguments in favor of that (theological argument of preservation is not among them, though). I’m personally not convinced, despite my general tilt in favor of things traditional.
- Translation teams, including NIV, Metzger, et. al., are aware of the ommissions in UBS
- Translation teams have at least sometimes chosen to put them back into the text (motives are pretty speculative. I’m inclined to take them at their word that they have mostly tried to go where the evidence leads)
- Many of the “200” are not really missing because they’re bracketed or in footnotes
- The “200 missing verses” are hard to find in the translations because the “discrepancy is not very large” (i.e., they are hard to detect because they don’t amount to much?)
As for “scientific,” Brent, I suspect what Ed means in this case is “evidenced based.” So, in that sense, historical inquiry is a science.
But I’d disagree w/Ed that option 3 is more scientific. You have to have a prior bias in favor of the traditional text to see that solution as the ideal. If you look at all the “texts” on an equal footing, it’s not so easy to decide how note the discrepancies, especially in a translation. So should we be biased in favor of the traditional text? There have been some good arguments in favor of that (theological argument of preservation is not among them, though). I’m personally not convinced, despite my general tilt in favor of things traditional.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
We still seem to be struggling with a heavy smokescreen, obscuring the view.
Here below for instance, you have completely misunderstood what I said, although I have to admit your 1984-speak is incredibly clever:
Let me spell it out:
(1) Its NOT that the discrepancy is small between the ESV and KJV for instance, because that discrepancy is not small but LARGE.
but I meant something entirely different:
(2) The discrepancy between modern versions like the ESV and the UBS4 Greek Text is not very large, meaning they follow the modern critical Greek text almost always, except in a few cases where deleting the verses would raise a storm of protest.
Nice shot at misdirection under the heading of “Digest”.
Alterations to the Christian text are not a big deal.
This is certainly true for most of secular society. I guess you are suggesting we join them.
peace
Nazaroo
Here below for instance, you have completely misunderstood what I said, although I have to admit your 1984-speak is incredibly clever:
Aaron: But you cannot find 200 “whole or half verses” missing.Aaron’s Remarkable Synthesis:
Nazaroo: This I think is a moot point, because the discrepancy is not very large.
The “200 missing verses” are hard to find in the translations because the “discrepancy is not very large”.Wow! Nice magic trick.
Let me spell it out:
(1) Its NOT that the discrepancy is small between the ESV and KJV for instance, because that discrepancy is not small but LARGE.
but I meant something entirely different:
(2) The discrepancy between modern versions like the ESV and the UBS4 Greek Text is not very large, meaning they follow the modern critical Greek text almost always, except in a few cases where deleting the verses would raise a storm of protest.
Nice shot at misdirection under the heading of “Digest”.
Many of the “200” are not really missing because they’re bracketed or in footnotesThis really I think misses the point. Why are some 200 half-verses being put in brackets or in footnotes, when the evidence suggests that the omissions are accidental errors? This procedure was a clumsy, extreme alteration of the Christian text without a good reason.
So I kind of wonder what the big deal is.You know, I kind of think I understand. If the state, condition, and ongoing alterations to the NT text, many undocumented, are not a big deal to you, then of course I think we could sum up with a Digest:
Alterations to the Christian text are not a big deal.
This is certainly true for most of secular society. I guess you are suggesting we join them.
peace
Nazaroo
Jn 7:53-8:11 is authentic John: http://adultera.awardspace.com
posted today at his http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/ Parchment & Pen Blog
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/02/text-criticism-in-a-nutsh…] TEXT CRITICISM IN A NUTSHELL
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/02/text-criticism-in-a-nutsh…] TEXT CRITICISM IN A NUTSHELL
There are, in the New Testament alone, somewhere between 300,000 to 400,000 variants. Ouch! This means that among the 6000 extant New Testament Greek manuscripts, there are nearly half a million differences. This amounts to about three variants per word.
Don’t get scared, just hang with me …
First, we need to settle on this. The reason why we have so many variants is because we have so many manuscripts available!
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
Ed, even the difference between ESV and KJV is not very large. Not 200 verses by a long shot.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] Ed, even the difference between ESV and KJV is not very large. Not 200 verses by a long shot.Dear Aaron: I’m not really sure what you mean here. Do you mean:
(a) …that the material removed from the main text and/or placed in brackets or placed in footnotes does not amount in bulk to the same size that 200 average verses would occupy? or,
(b) …that the number of Variation Units involving significant omissions does not add up to 200 instances (i.e., 200 different verses are involved, with amounts of text varying from a whole verse to a 1/3 of a verse)?
It would help to clarify your language here.
If you mean (b), I think we can deliver a list of 200 or more verses (places) where most modern versions including the ESV delete whole or half-verses, some 90% of the time.
For instance, along with the 25 cases in the first post from Matthew, here is a list from Mark and Luke:
_________________________________________________________
Mark (37 more cases)
Mark:
verse chrs omissions (varying letters per column) WH TYPE
1:1 11 (7) υιου του θεου Om (h.t.)
1:14 12 της βασιλειας Om —
1:42 13 ειποντος αυτου Om (h.t.)
3:5 12 υγιης ως η αλλη Om —
3:15 22 (11) θεραπευειν τ
ας νοσους και Om (h.t.)
6:11 74 6x12 5x15 4x18 3x24 αμην λεγω υμιν ανε
κτοτερον εσται σο
δομοις η γομορροι
ς εν ημερα κρισεως
η τη πολει εκεινη Om —
6:33 20 και συνηλθο
ν προς αυτον Om (h.t.)
6:36 10 (+3) ουκ εχουσιν Om (h.t.)
7:2 9 εμεμψαντο Om —
7:8 61 6x10 4x15 3x20 βαπτισμους ξεστω
ν και ποτηριων και α
λλα παρομοια τοιαυ
τα πολλα ποιειτε Om —
7:16 26 2x13 ει τις εχει ωτα α
κουειν ακουετω Om —
8:9 10 οι φαγοντες Om —
8:26 21 μηδε ειπης τ
ινι εν τη κωμη Om (h.a.)
9:29 10 και νηστεια Om (h.a.)
9:38 18 ος ουκ ακολουθει ημιν Om (ed.)
9:44 44 4x11 3x15 οπου ο σκωληξ αυτ
ων ου τελευτα και τ
ο πυρου σβεννυται Om —
9:45-6 62 εις το πυρ το ασβεστ
ον οπου ο σκωληξ αυ
των ου τελευτα και
το πυρ ου σβεννυται Om
9:49 26 2x13 και πασα θυσια α
λι αλισθησεται Om (h.t.)
10:7 38 2x19 και προσκολληθησεται
προς την γυναικα αυτου Om (h.t.)
10:21 14 αρας τον σταυρον Om —
10:24 29 2x15 τους πεποιθοτας
επι τοις χρημασιν Om —
11:8 23 2x12 και εστρωννυο
ν εις την οδον Om (h.t.)
11:10 15 εν ονοματι κυριου Om —
11:23 8 ο εαν ειπη Om —
11:26 70 4x18 5x14 ει δε υμεις ουκ αφ
ιετε ουδε ο πατηρ
υμων ο εν τοις ουρ
ανοις αφησει τα π
αραπτωματα υμων Om (h.t.)
12:23 13 οταν αναστωσιν (In) —
12:29 15 πασων των εντολων Om —
12:30 15 αυτη πρωτη εντολη Om —
12:33 17 και εξ ολης της ψυχης Om (h.a.)
13:11 12 μηδε μελετατε Om (h.t.)
13:14 27 2x13 το ρηθεν υπο δαν
ιηλ του προφητου Om (h.t.*)
14:19 15 και αλλος μητι εγω Om (h.t.)
14:27 20 2x10 εν εμοι εν τη
νυκτι ταυτη Om (h.a.)
14:68 18 και αλεκτωρ εφωνησεν (In) (h.t.)
14:70 20 2x10 και η λαλια σ
ου ομοιαζει (In) (h.t.)
15:3 22 2x11 αυτος δε ουδε
ν απεκρινατο Om —
15:28 46 3x15 και επληρωθη η γραφ
η η λεγουσα και μετ
α ανομων ελογισθη Om (h.t.)
________________________________________________________________
Luke (50 more cases)
verse chr whole/half-verses omitted WH SBL
1:28 22 ευλογημενη συ εν γυναιξιν Om Om
1:29 16 ιδουσα διεταραχθη Om Om
2:42 13 εις ιεροσολυμα Om Om
4:4 19 αλλ επι παντι ρηματι θυ Om Om
4:5 22 ο διαβολος εις ορος υψηλον (h.t.) Om Om
4:8 19 υπαγε οπισω μου σατανα Om Om
4:18 37
2x19 ιασασθαι τους συντετρ
ιμμενους την καρδιαν Om Om
5:38 24 και αμφοτεροι συντηρουνται (h.t.) Om Om
6:45 23 θησαυρου της καρδιας αυτου (h.t.) Om Om
7:31 10 ειπεν δε ο κς Om Om
8:43 31 ἰατροῖς προσαναλώσασα ὅλον τὸν βίον Om [in]
8:45a 13 και οι μετ αυτου Om Om
8:45b 24 και λεγεις τις ο αψαμενος μου Om Om
8:48 6 θαρσει (h.a.) Om Om
8:54 19 εκβαλων εξω παντας και Om Om
9:10 11 τοπον ερημον Om Om
9:54 18 ως και ηλιας εποιησεν Om Om
9:55-6 96
2x48
4x24
(4x22) και ειπεν ουκ οιδατε οιου πνε
υματος εστε υμεις ο γαρ υιος τ
ου ανθρωπου ουκ ηλθεν ψυχας α
νθρωπων απολεσαι αλλα σωσαι (h.t.) Om Om
10:38 16 εις τον οικον αυτης Om Om
11:2 15 ο εν τοις ουρανοις Om Om
11:2 41 γενηθητω το θελημα σου ως
εν ουρανω και επι της γης Om Om
11:4 26
2x13 αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου Om Om
11:11 26
2x13 αρτον μη λιθον επιδωσει αυτω ει Om Om
11:44 31
2x15 γραμματεις και φαρισαιοι υποκριται Om Om
11:54 21 ινα κατηγορησωσιν αυτου (h.t.) Om Om
12:39 16 εγρηγορησεν αν και (h.t.) — Om
17:9 10 αυτω ου δοκω (h.t.) Om Om
17:24 14 εν τη ημερα αυτου (h.t.) Om Om
17:36 56
4x14
2x28
δυο εσονται εν τω
αγρω ο εις παραλη
φθησεται και ο ετ
ερος αφεθησεται (h.t.) Om Om
18:24 18 περιλυπον γενομενον Om Om
19:45 20 εν αυτω και αγοραζοντας (h.t.) Om Om
20:13 7 ιδοντες (h.t.) Om Om
20:23 13 τι με πειραζετε Om Om
20:30 33
2x17 την γυναικα και ουτο
ς απεθανεν ατεκνος (h.t.) Om Om
22:19b-20 152
8x19
το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο
ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν
ωσαυτως και το ποτηριον μετα
το δειπνησαι λεγων τουτο το
ποτηριον η καινη διαθηκη
εν τω αιματι μου το
υπερ υμων εκχυνομενον [[DB [SB]
22:31 14 ειπεν δε ο κυριος Om Om
22:43-4 141
7x20
ωφθη δε αυτω αγγελος απ ουρανου ενισχυων αυτον
και γενομενος εν αγωνια εκτενεστερον προσηυχετο εγενετο δε ο ιδρως αυτου ωσει θρομβοι αιματος καταβαινοντες επι την γην [[DB [ins]
22:64 30
2x15 αυτον ετυπτον αυτου το προσωπον και (h.t.) Om Om
22:68 10 η απολυσητε Om Om
23:17 41
2x20 αναγκην δε ειχεν απολυε
ιν αυτοις κατα εορτην ενα (h.t.) Om Om
23:23 15 και των αρχιερεων (h.t.) Om Om
23:38 48
2x24 γραμμασιν ελληνικοις και ρω
μαικοις και εβραικοις ουτος (h.t.)* Om Om
24:1 17 και τινες συν αυταις Om Om
24:12 ο δε πετρος αναστας εδραμεν επι το μνημειον και παρακυψας βλεπει τα οθονια κειμενα μονα και απηλθεν προς εαυτον θαυμαζων το γεγονος [[DB [ins]
24:36 24
2x12 και λεγει αυτοις ειρηνη υμιν [[DB Om
24:40 και τουτο ειπων επεδειξεν αυτοις τας χειρας και τους ποδας [[DB [SB]
24:42 21 και απο μελισσιου κηριου (h.t.) Om Om
24:46 12 και ουτως εδει Om Om
24:51 25 και ανεφερετο εις τον ουρανον (h.t.) [[DB [SB]
24:52 19 προσκυνήσαντες αὐτὸν (h.t.) [[DB [SB]
VUs=50 SBL - W/H = 92% agreement in Luke 43om 46/50
25 + 37 + 50 = 112 cases (Variation Units/verses) in the Synoptics alone!
Add another 50 for John and Acts, and another 50 at least for the Epistles and Revelation, and you can see that there are about 220 verses in total involving the omission of a whole or half-verse.
peace
Nazaroo
Jn 7:53-8:11 is authentic John: http://adultera.awardspace.com
A few of these at random…
KJV | Lk 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
NASB95 | Lk 6:45 “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.
ESV | Lk 6:45 The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.
KJV | Mk 11:8 And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strawed them in the way.
NASB95 | Mk 11:8 And many spread their coats in the road, and others spread leafy branches which they had cut from the fields.
ESV | Mk 11:8 And many spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut from the fields.
KJV | Lk 24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
NASB95 | Lk 24:42 They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish;
ESV | Lk 24:42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
OK, three random samples. The first… I don’t see anything missing. Second, something is missing in the non-TR translations, but something is also added. In the last, well, if we find enough really short verses we can come up with quite a few that we can loosely categorize as “half a verse omitted.”
No time at present to analyze all of these, but I think they sort of illustrate what we’re really dealing with.
Edit: I see on the first one that one of the “of his heart”s is missing in the eclectic text based translations. “Half verse”? I don’t think so.
KJV | Lk 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
NASB95 | Lk 6:45 “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.
ESV | Lk 6:45 The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.
KJV | Mk 11:8 And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strawed them in the way.
NASB95 | Mk 11:8 And many spread their coats in the road, and others spread leafy branches which they had cut from the fields.
ESV | Mk 11:8 And many spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut from the fields.
KJV | Lk 24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
NASB95 | Lk 24:42 They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish;
ESV | Lk 24:42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
OK, three random samples. The first… I don’t see anything missing. Second, something is missing in the non-TR translations, but something is also added. In the last, well, if we find enough really short verses we can come up with quite a few that we can loosely categorize as “half a verse omitted.”
No time at present to analyze all of these, but I think they sort of illustrate what we’re really dealing with.
Edit: I see on the first one that one of the “of his heart”s is missing in the eclectic text based translations. “Half verse”? I don’t think so.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron is absolutely right here. Whether his examples were selected at random is a moot point.
Some omissions are indeed short, comprising of only a few words or a phrase.
Of course that is also true of some whole verses.
The expressions “whole verse” and “half-verse” are not indications of size of an omission, because they don’t indicate sizes at all.
Those were dictated by the often ‘random’ way that a certain man in the Middle Ages decided
to divide and number NT verses, while riding on horseback or in a carriage (I forget which).
The verse “Jesus wept”, may be remarkable as the shortest NT verse,
and if there had been a scribal error, a half-verse would have amounted to one word.
What we are calling verses/half-verses are omissions basically consisting of more than one word in Greek
as a cutoff point, on average being one or more line-lengths in size in a typical manuscript in Greek,
and attributable to the loss of a whole line or a multiple of same (from 10 to 25 letters in actual length).
Keep in mind that verse divisions were not invented until centuries after the NT was written and collected.
Secondly, it is very often the case that a single word or two in Greek requires five or six in English, properly translated,
and the reverse is also sometimes true, where a translation can convey the meaning in a short phrase of few letters,
where in Greek the text is very long and involves complex and compound word-constructions.
All we have done essentially is exclude ‘itacisms’ (spelling errors), W.O.R.s (word order changes),
and omissions of a single word, such as “Christ” or “Jesus”.
These smaller changes and omissions don’t usually affect the text at all,
because in English the antecedent or reference is either obvious or supplied (e.g., “he said” = “Jesus said”).
That is, minor omissions don’t cause differences in translation except in special cases.
Our procedure is not unreasonable however. Omissions of more than one word usually DO affect translation.
A glance at our list above (‘random’ selections are not needed) shows that many omissions are very large.
Unfortunately, Aaron’s “random” sample is not representative at all of the wide range of omissions
and the damage done to the text by following these accidental omissions in many cases.
peace
Nazaroo
Some omissions are indeed short, comprising of only a few words or a phrase.
Of course that is also true of some whole verses.
The expressions “whole verse” and “half-verse” are not indications of size of an omission, because they don’t indicate sizes at all.
Those were dictated by the often ‘random’ way that a certain man in the Middle Ages decided
to divide and number NT verses, while riding on horseback or in a carriage (I forget which).
The verse “Jesus wept”, may be remarkable as the shortest NT verse,
and if there had been a scribal error, a half-verse would have amounted to one word.
What we are calling verses/half-verses are omissions basically consisting of more than one word in Greek
as a cutoff point, on average being one or more line-lengths in size in a typical manuscript in Greek,
and attributable to the loss of a whole line or a multiple of same (from 10 to 25 letters in actual length).
Keep in mind that verse divisions were not invented until centuries after the NT was written and collected.
Secondly, it is very often the case that a single word or two in Greek requires five or six in English, properly translated,
and the reverse is also sometimes true, where a translation can convey the meaning in a short phrase of few letters,
where in Greek the text is very long and involves complex and compound word-constructions.
All we have done essentially is exclude ‘itacisms’ (spelling errors), W.O.R.s (word order changes),
and omissions of a single word, such as “Christ” or “Jesus”.
These smaller changes and omissions don’t usually affect the text at all,
because in English the antecedent or reference is either obvious or supplied (e.g., “he said” = “Jesus said”).
That is, minor omissions don’t cause differences in translation except in special cases.
Our procedure is not unreasonable however. Omissions of more than one word usually DO affect translation.
A glance at our list above (‘random’ selections are not needed) shows that many omissions are very large.
Unfortunately, Aaron’s “random” sample is not representative at all of the wide range of omissions
and the damage done to the text by following these accidental omissions in many cases.
peace
Nazaroo
Jn 7:53-8:11 is authentic John: http://adultera.awardspace.com
[Edward Miller] What we are calling verses/half-verses are omissions basically consisting of more than one word in GreekWhether or not the procedure is reasonable, the labeling is not. To use “half-verses” when the criterion used is “more than one word” is misleading: it makes the extent of the issue sound greater than it is.
as a cutoff point
Our procedure is not unreasonable however. Omissions of more than one word usually DO affect translation.
More generally, to begin the discussion talking about the 200 deleted or omitted verses is itself somewhat misleading in that it presumes the removal of something that was originally there, which is the very issue under consideration.
Finally, I still do not see what this has to do with scientists and science. Aaron, I understand your point about “evidence based,” but that is not necessarily the same as the scientific method. Lawyers, judges, and juries deal with a great deal of evidence, but no one would confuse us with being scientists because of that work.
As the quantity of communication increases, so does its quality decline; and the most important sign of this is that it is no longer acceptable to say so.--RScruton
So “verses and half-verses” = “changes of more than one word”
Well, that re-orients the whole conversation. I think I don’t have anything much more to say.
A fair number of Greek words consist of a single letter or just two letters. So it’s pretty easy to get a MS variant consisting of “more than one word.”
Well, that re-orients the whole conversation. I think I don’t have anything much more to say.
A fair number of Greek words consist of a single letter or just two letters. So it’s pretty easy to get a MS variant consisting of “more than one word.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Actually the phrase “half-verse” is quite reasonable, since the issue is not ‘the criterion used’,
but what the size of the bulk of the omissions actually is.
Looking directly at the copious list shows that the bulk of omissions are indeed about the length of an average verse. Playing with words or sampling changes nothing.
The amount of actual Greek and English material omitted is a large quantity,
amounting to the equivalent of two whole letters, such as Peter and Jude.
To pretend that the quantity of the omissions in modern critical texts and English translations
is small really is a misdirection attempt, and bickering about definitions is a waste of time.
For instance, look at the size of the amount of just half the material omitted from Mark and Luke. Double that for Matthew and John, and add the same again for Acts/Epistles:
υιουτουθεου τηςβασιλειας ειποντοςαυτου υγιηςωςηαλλη θεραπευειντ αςνοσουςκαι αμηνλεγωυμινανε κτοτερονεσταισο δομοιςηγομορροι ςενημερακρισεως ητηπολειεκεινη καισυνηλθο νπροςαυτον ουκεχουσιν εμεμψαντο βαπτισμουςξεστω νκαιποτηριωνκαια λλαπαρομοιατοιαυ ταπολλαποιειτε ειτιςεχειωταα κουεινακουετω οιφαγοντες μηδεειπηςτ ινιεντηκωμη καινηστεια οςουκακολουθειημινed. οπουοσκωληξαυτ ωνουτελευτακαιτ οπυρουσβεννυται ειςτοπυρτοασβεστ ονοπουοσκωληξαυ τωνουτελευτακαι τοπυρουσβεννυται καιπασαθυσιαα λιαλισθησεται καιπροσκολληθησεται προςτηνγυναικααυτου αραςτονσταυρον τουςπεποιθοτας επιτοιςχρημασιν καιεστρωννυο νειςτηνοδον ενονοματικυριου οεανειπη ειδευμειςουκαφ ιετεουδεοπατηρ υμωνοεντοιςουρ ανοιςαφησειταπ αραπτωματαυμων οταναναστωσινIn πασωντωνεντολων αυτηπρωτηεντολη καιεξοληςτηςψυχης μηδεμελετατε τορηθενυποδαν ιηλτουπροφητουh.t. καιαλλοςμητιεγω ενεμοιεντη νυκτιταυτη καιαλεκτωρεφωνησενIn καιηλαλιασ ουομοιαζειIn αυτοςδεουδε ναπεκρινατο καιεπληρωθηηγραφ ηηλεγουσακαιμετ αανομωνελογισθη ευλογημενησυενγυναιξιν ιδουσαδιεταραχθη ειςιεροσολυμα αλλεπιπαντιρηματιθυ οδιαβολοςειςοροςυψηλον υπαγεοπισωμουσατανα ιασασθαιτουςσυντετρ ιμμενουςτηνκαρδιαν καιαμφοτεροισυντηρουνται θησαυρουτηςκαρδιαςαυτου ειπενδεοκς ἰατροῖςπροσαναλώσασαὅλοντὸνβίον καιοιμεταυτου καιλεγειςτιςοαψαμενοςμου θαρσει εκβαλωνεξωπανταςκαι τοπονερημον ωςκαιηλιαςεποιησεν καιειπενουκοιδατεοιουπνε υματοςεστευμειςογαρυιοςτ ουανθρωπουουκηλθενψυχαςα νθρωπωναπολεσαιαλλασωσαι ειςτονοικοναυτης οεντοιςουρανοις γενηθητωτοθελημασουως ενουρανωκαιεπιτηςγης αλλαρυσαιημαςαποτουπονηρου αρτονμηλιθονεπιδωσειαυτωει γραμματειςκαιφαρισαιοιυποκριται ινακατηγορησωσιναυτου εγρηγορησενανκαι αυτωουδοκω εντηημερααυτου δυοεσονταιεντω αγρωοειςπαραλη φθησεταικαιοετ εροςαφεθησεται περιλυπονγενομενον εναυτωκαιαγοραζοντας ιδοντες τιμεπειραζετε τηνγυναικακαιουτο ςαπεθανενατεκνος τουπερυμωνδιδομενοντουτο ποιειτεειςτηνεμηναναμνησιν ωσαυτωςκαιτοποτηριονμετα τοδειπνησαιλεγωντουτοτο ποτηριονηκαινηδιαθηκη εντωαιματιμουτο υπερυμωνεκχυνομενον ειπενδεοκυριος ωφθηδεαυτωαγγελοςαπουρανουενισχυωναυτοναιγενομενοςεναγωνιαεκτενεστερονπροσηυχετοεγενετοδεοιδρωςαυτουωσειθρομβοιαιματοςκαταβαινοντεςεπιτηνγην αυτονετυπτοναυτουτοπροσωπονκαι ηαπολυσητε αναγκηνδεειχεναπολυε ιναυτοιςκαταεορτηνενα καιτωναρχιερεων γραμμασινελληνικοιςκαιρω μαικοιςκαιεβραικοιςουτος καιτινεςσυναυταιςδεπετροςανασταςεδραμενεπιτομνημειονκαιπαρακυψαςβλεπειταοθονιακειμεναμονακαιαπηλθενπροςεαυτονθαυμαζωντογεγονος καιλεγειαυτοιςειρηνηυμιν καιτουτοειπωνεπεδειξεναυτοιςταςχειραςκαιτουςποδας καιαπομελισσιουκηριου καιουτωςεδει καιανεφερετοειςτονουρανον προσκυνήσαντεςαὐτὸν
υιουτουθεου τηςβασιλειας ειποντοςαυτου υγιηςωςηαλλη θεραπευειντ αςνοσουςκαι αμηνλεγωυμινανε κτοτερονεσταισο δομοιςηγομορροι ςενημερακρισεως ητηπολειεκεινη καισυνηλθο νπροςαυτον ουκεχουσιν εμεμψαντο βαπτισμουςξεστω νκαιποτηριωνκαια λλαπαρομοιατοιαυ ταπολλαποιειτε ειτιςεχειωταα κουεινακουετω οιφαγοντες μηδεειπηςτ ινιεντηκωμη καινηστεια οςουκακολουθειημινed. οπουοσκωληξαυτ ωνουτελευτακαιτ οπυρουσβεννυται ειςτοπυρτοασβεστ ονοπουοσκωληξαυ τωνουτελευτακαι τοπυρουσβεννυται καιπασαθυσιαα λιαλισθησεται καιπροσκολληθησεται προςτηνγυναικααυτου αραςτονσταυρον τουςπεποιθοτας επιτοιςχρημασιν καιεστρωννυο νειςτηνοδον ενονοματικυριου οεανειπη ειδευμειςουκαφ ιετεουδεοπατηρ υμωνοεντοιςουρ ανοιςαφησειταπ αραπτωματαυμων οταναναστωσινIn πασωντωνεντολων αυτηπρωτηεντολη καιεξοληςτηςψυχης μηδεμελετατε τορηθενυποδαν ιηλτουπροφητουh.t. καιαλλοςμητιεγω ενεμοιεντη νυκτιταυτη καιαλεκτωρεφωνησενIn καιηλαλιασ ουομοιαζειIn αυτοςδεουδε ναπεκρινατο καιεπληρωθηηγραφ ηηλεγουσακαιμετ αανομωνελογισθη ευλογημενησυενγυναιξιν ιδουσαδιεταραχθη ειςιεροσολυμα αλλεπιπαντιρηματιθυ οδιαβολοςειςοροςυψηλον υπαγεοπισωμουσατανα ιασασθαιτουςσυντετρ ιμμενουςτηνκαρδιαν καιαμφοτεροισυντηρουνται θησαυρουτηςκαρδιαςαυτου ειπενδεοκς ἰατροῖςπροσαναλώσασαὅλοντὸνβίον καιοιμεταυτου καιλεγειςτιςοαψαμενοςμου θαρσει εκβαλωνεξωπανταςκαι τοπονερημον ωςκαιηλιαςεποιησεν καιειπενουκοιδατεοιουπνε υματοςεστευμειςογαρυιοςτ ουανθρωπουουκηλθενψυχαςα νθρωπωναπολεσαιαλλασωσαι ειςτονοικοναυτης οεντ
There is a limit of 8,000 characters to posts here, but the material is way over that.
You can see that quite a lot of material has been deleted. There is no point in hiding it.
peace
Nazaroo
but what the size of the bulk of the omissions actually is.
Looking directly at the copious list shows that the bulk of omissions are indeed about the length of an average verse. Playing with words or sampling changes nothing.
The amount of actual Greek and English material omitted is a large quantity,
amounting to the equivalent of two whole letters, such as Peter and Jude.
To pretend that the quantity of the omissions in modern critical texts and English translations
is small really is a misdirection attempt, and bickering about definitions is a waste of time.
For instance, look at the size of the amount of just half the material omitted from Mark and Luke. Double that for Matthew and John, and add the same again for Acts/Epistles:
υιουτουθεου τηςβασιλειας ειποντοςαυτου υγιηςωςηαλλη θεραπευειντ αςνοσουςκαι αμηνλεγωυμινανε κτοτερονεσταισο δομοιςηγομορροι ςενημερακρισεως ητηπολειεκεινη καισυνηλθο νπροςαυτον ουκεχουσιν εμεμψαντο βαπτισμουςξεστω νκαιποτηριωνκαια λλαπαρομοιατοιαυ ταπολλαποιειτε ειτιςεχειωταα κουεινακουετω οιφαγοντες μηδεειπηςτ ινιεντηκωμη καινηστεια οςουκακολουθειημινed. οπουοσκωληξαυτ ωνουτελευτακαιτ οπυρουσβεννυται ειςτοπυρτοασβεστ ονοπουοσκωληξαυ τωνουτελευτακαι τοπυρουσβεννυται καιπασαθυσιαα λιαλισθησεται καιπροσκολληθησεται προςτηνγυναικααυτου αραςτονσταυρον τουςπεποιθοτας επιτοιςχρημασιν καιεστρωννυο νειςτηνοδον ενονοματικυριου οεανειπη ειδευμειςουκαφ ιετεουδεοπατηρ υμωνοεντοιςουρ ανοιςαφησειταπ αραπτωματαυμων οταναναστωσινIn πασωντωνεντολων αυτηπρωτηεντολη καιεξοληςτηςψυχης μηδεμελετατε τορηθενυποδαν ιηλτουπροφητουh.t. καιαλλοςμητιεγω ενεμοιεντη νυκτιταυτη καιαλεκτωρεφωνησενIn καιηλαλιασ ουομοιαζειIn αυτοςδεουδε ναπεκρινατο καιεπληρωθηηγραφ ηηλεγουσακαιμετ αανομωνελογισθη ευλογημενησυενγυναιξιν ιδουσαδιεταραχθη ειςιεροσολυμα αλλεπιπαντιρηματιθυ οδιαβολοςειςοροςυψηλον υπαγεοπισωμουσατανα ιασασθαιτουςσυντετρ ιμμενουςτηνκαρδιαν καιαμφοτεροισυντηρουνται θησαυρουτηςκαρδιαςαυτου ειπενδεοκς ἰατροῖςπροσαναλώσασαὅλοντὸνβίον καιοιμεταυτου καιλεγειςτιςοαψαμενοςμου θαρσει εκβαλωνεξωπανταςκαι τοπονερημον ωςκαιηλιαςεποιησεν καιειπενουκοιδατεοιουπνε υματοςεστευμειςογαρυιοςτ ουανθρωπουουκηλθενψυχαςα νθρωπωναπολεσαιαλλασωσαι ειςτονοικοναυτης οεντοιςουρανοις γενηθητωτοθελημασουως ενουρανωκαιεπιτηςγης αλλαρυσαιημαςαποτουπονηρου αρτονμηλιθονεπιδωσειαυτωει γραμματειςκαιφαρισαιοιυποκριται ινακατηγορησωσιναυτου εγρηγορησενανκαι αυτωουδοκω εντηημερααυτου δυοεσονταιεντω αγρωοειςπαραλη φθησεταικαιοετ εροςαφεθησεται περιλυπονγενομενον εναυτωκαιαγοραζοντας ιδοντες τιμεπειραζετε τηνγυναικακαιουτο ςαπεθανενατεκνος τουπερυμωνδιδομενοντουτο ποιειτεειςτηνεμηναναμνησιν ωσαυτωςκαιτοποτηριονμετα τοδειπνησαιλεγωντουτοτο ποτηριονηκαινηδιαθηκη εντωαιματιμουτο υπερυμωνεκχυνομενον ειπενδεοκυριος ωφθηδεαυτωαγγελοςαπουρανουενισχυωναυτοναιγενομενοςεναγωνιαεκτενεστερονπροσηυχετοεγενετοδεοιδρωςαυτουωσειθρομβοιαιματοςκαταβαινοντεςεπιτηνγην αυτονετυπτοναυτουτοπροσωπονκαι ηαπολυσητε αναγκηνδεειχεναπολυε ιναυτοιςκαταεορτηνενα καιτωναρχιερεων γραμμασινελληνικοιςκαιρω μαικοιςκαιεβραικοιςουτος καιτινεςσυναυταιςδεπετροςανασταςεδραμενεπιτομνημειονκαιπαρακυψαςβλεπειταοθονιακειμεναμονακαιαπηλθενπροςεαυτονθαυμαζωντογεγονος καιλεγειαυτοιςειρηνηυμιν καιτουτοειπωνεπεδειξεναυτοιςταςχειραςκαιτουςποδας καιαπομελισσιουκηριου καιουτωςεδει καιανεφερετοειςτονουρανον προσκυνήσαντεςαὐτὸν
υιουτουθεου τηςβασιλειας ειποντοςαυτου υγιηςωςηαλλη θεραπευειντ αςνοσουςκαι αμηνλεγωυμινανε κτοτερονεσταισο δομοιςηγομορροι ςενημερακρισεως ητηπολειεκεινη καισυνηλθο νπροςαυτον ουκεχουσιν εμεμψαντο βαπτισμουςξεστω νκαιποτηριωνκαια λλαπαρομοιατοιαυ ταπολλαποιειτε ειτιςεχειωταα κουεινακουετω οιφαγοντες μηδεειπηςτ ινιεντηκωμη καινηστεια οςουκακολουθειημινed. οπουοσκωληξαυτ ωνουτελευτακαιτ οπυρουσβεννυται ειςτοπυρτοασβεστ ονοπουοσκωληξαυ τωνουτελευτακαι τοπυρουσβεννυται καιπασαθυσιαα λιαλισθησεται καιπροσκολληθησεται προςτηνγυναικααυτου αραςτονσταυρον τουςπεποιθοτας επιτοιςχρημασιν καιεστρωννυο νειςτηνοδον ενονοματικυριου οεανειπη ειδευμειςουκαφ ιετεουδεοπατηρ υμωνοεντοιςουρ ανοιςαφησειταπ αραπτωματαυμων οταναναστωσινIn πασωντωνεντολων αυτηπρωτηεντολη καιεξοληςτηςψυχης μηδεμελετατε τορηθενυποδαν ιηλτουπροφητουh.t. καιαλλοςμητιεγω ενεμοιεντη νυκτιταυτη καιαλεκτωρεφωνησενIn καιηλαλιασ ουομοιαζειIn αυτοςδεουδε ναπεκρινατο καιεπληρωθηηγραφ ηηλεγουσακαιμετ αανομωνελογισθη ευλογημενησυενγυναιξιν ιδουσαδιεταραχθη ειςιεροσολυμα αλλεπιπαντιρηματιθυ οδιαβολοςειςοροςυψηλον υπαγεοπισωμουσατανα ιασασθαιτουςσυντετρ ιμμενουςτηνκαρδιαν καιαμφοτεροισυντηρουνται θησαυρουτηςκαρδιαςαυτου ειπενδεοκς ἰατροῖςπροσαναλώσασαὅλοντὸνβίον καιοιμεταυτου καιλεγειςτιςοαψαμενοςμου θαρσει εκβαλωνεξωπανταςκαι τοπονερημον ωςκαιηλιαςεποιησεν καιειπενουκοιδατεοιουπνε υματοςεστευμειςογαρυιοςτ ουανθρωπουουκηλθενψυχαςα νθρωπωναπολεσαιαλλασωσαι ειςτονοικοναυτης οεντ
There is a limit of 8,000 characters to posts here, but the material is way over that.
You can see that quite a lot of material has been deleted. There is no point in hiding it.
peace
Nazaroo
Jn 7:53-8:11 is authentic John: http://adultera.awardspace.com
How of much of that is allegedly not properly documented?
(Of course, all they have to do is compare NA27 or UBS to Maj or TR and it’s easy to see… I still don’t get what’s supposed to be sneaky about any of this)
(Of course, all they have to do is compare NA27 or UBS to Maj or TR and it’s easy to see… I still don’t get what’s supposed to be sneaky about any of this)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Probably the bulk of the undocumented changes amounts to less than a third of the changes made to the traditional text and adopted by the UBS text for instance. In this case, however, there are a lot more undocumented changes than you might expect, because there are also thousands of changes in spelling and minor grammatical structure/morphology that has no or little effect on translation.
The question of “sneaky” involves a proper consideration of the real-life context in which modern versions are used.
It is probably safe to say that the majority of Christians would not even know what the acronym NA27 or TR means. Nor would they have any acquaintance with a Greek NT text. Certainly more people do today than in 1950, but these ‘counts’ must be adjusted according to population growth, and fads / enrollment in seminaries and changes of university curriculum over time, and then interpreted with caution.
However, most Christians have a natural and wholesome respect and awe for the word of God in the Holy Scriptures. When asked, I have found that most Christians I have talked to are very concerned that the Bible had many more verses in it for the last thousand-year period than typical modern versions do today. When I explain why they were removed, and who did it on what authority, they often take a real interest in how this has come about in the last 100 years.
Most Christians I’ve talked to (and most of these were Protestants) don’t believe that the Holy scriptures were corrupted for a thousand years, only to be restored by a couple of Anglican academics of dubious Christian commitment. That scenario, in which the “true text” was ‘miraculously’ discovered by luke-warm archaeologists and academics in manuscripts lost for 1300 years just doesn’t fly. Even those who believe the Roman Catholic church was indeed corrupted severely in the Middle Ages (i.e., the Inquisition, Witchhunts etc.) don’t believe that the Bible was falsified by ecclesiastics for a thousand years.
The average Christian layperson thinks that claims by fringe groups like the Mormons or the JWs or the SDAs are exaggerated, and they don’t buy the popular myth that Constantine or some early power-group forged or mutilated the fundamental documents of christianity.
Its far more plausible to the people I’ve talked to in detail, with the current evidences in view, that some manuscripts were corrupted early, but that the ‘church’ (meaning the bulk of Christians) handled the text conscientiously and it was preserved far better in its circulation among Christians throughout the centuries than it has in various abandoned early copies.
The question of “sneaky” involves a proper consideration of the real-life context in which modern versions are used.
It is probably safe to say that the majority of Christians would not even know what the acronym NA27 or TR means. Nor would they have any acquaintance with a Greek NT text. Certainly more people do today than in 1950, but these ‘counts’ must be adjusted according to population growth, and fads / enrollment in seminaries and changes of university curriculum over time, and then interpreted with caution.
However, most Christians have a natural and wholesome respect and awe for the word of God in the Holy Scriptures. When asked, I have found that most Christians I have talked to are very concerned that the Bible had many more verses in it for the last thousand-year period than typical modern versions do today. When I explain why they were removed, and who did it on what authority, they often take a real interest in how this has come about in the last 100 years.
Most Christians I’ve talked to (and most of these were Protestants) don’t believe that the Holy scriptures were corrupted for a thousand years, only to be restored by a couple of Anglican academics of dubious Christian commitment. That scenario, in which the “true text” was ‘miraculously’ discovered by luke-warm archaeologists and academics in manuscripts lost for 1300 years just doesn’t fly. Even those who believe the Roman Catholic church was indeed corrupted severely in the Middle Ages (i.e., the Inquisition, Witchhunts etc.) don’t believe that the Bible was falsified by ecclesiastics for a thousand years.
The average Christian layperson thinks that claims by fringe groups like the Mormons or the JWs or the SDAs are exaggerated, and they don’t buy the popular myth that Constantine or some early power-group forged or mutilated the fundamental documents of christianity.
Its far more plausible to the people I’ve talked to in detail, with the current evidences in view, that some manuscripts were corrupted early, but that the ‘church’ (meaning the bulk of Christians) handled the text conscientiously and it was preserved far better in its circulation among Christians throughout the centuries than it has in various abandoned early copies.
Jn 7:53-8:11 is authentic John: http://adultera.awardspace.com
Discussion