|
|
 | | From: | admin | | Subject: | THE HORTIAN-ECLECTIC THEORY REFUTED #10 | | Date: | Thu, 18 Nov 2004 05:36:08 GMT |
|
|
 | This a continuing post from the Book "Which Version is the
Bible" by Floyd Nolen Jones. Chapter 7, pages 83-112
Which Version is the Bible?
Copyright 1995 · Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc.
All Rights Reserved. This book may be freely reproduced in any form as long
as it is not distributed for any material gain or profit
"These two examples of alteration to the text of the New Testament after
A.D. 200 show how uncommon such changes were in the later period. ... There
can be no question that the earlier ones are far and away more in number.
Origen's treatment of Mt. 19:19 is significant in two other ways. First he
was probably the most influential commentator of the Ancient Church and yet
his conjecture at this point seems to have influenced only one manuscript of
a local version of the New Testament. The Greek tradition is apparently
quite unaffected by it. From the third century onward even an Origen could
not effectively alter the text. This brings us to the second significant
point - his date. From the early third century onward the freedom to alter
the text ... can no longer be practiced. Tatian is the last author to make
deliberate changes in the text of whom we have explicit information. Between
Tatian and Origen Christian opinion had so changed that it was no longer
possible to make changes in the text whether they were harmless or not."
(until our day - author)
Kilpatrick completes this aspect of his article saying:
"... by the end of the second century A.D. Christian opinion had hardened
against deliberate alteration of the text, however harmless the alteration
might be. The change of opinion was ... with the reaction against the
rehandling of the text by the second century heretics. This argument
confirms the opinion of H. Vogels ... that the vast majority of deliberate
changes in the New Testament text were older than A.D. 200. In other words
they came into being in the period A.D. 50-200.
Thus most of the deliberate changes had been injected into the text and the
creation of new variants had ceased by the year A.D. 200 with almost no
further damage being incurred thereafter. From this and other data, Sturz
rightly concluded that the readings of the Byzantine text were old as they,
like those of the other so-called text-types, demonstrably go back deep into
the 2nd-century.
Thus Burgon's "contrary evidence" has been produced such that the
presupposition in favor of antiquity is nullified - both by the known
existence of a variety of maliciously altered texts, especially during the
2nd-century, and the testimony of Scripture as noted.
It is common knowledge that the minority MSS, those upon which the critical
texts are based, used papyri or parchment which came only from Alexandria
Egypt. The question is - is it prudent to follow the witness of only one
locale? Is it reasonable that an original reading should survive in only one
region? In contrast, the majority TR text is composed of mss from Greece,
Asia Minor, Constantinople, Syria, Africa, Gaul, Southern Italy, Sicily,
England and Ireland. Alexandria had no original autographs of the New
Testament. Hence areas such as Rome, Greece, Asia Minor and Palestine had a
better start than did Egypt to have the true text of the Holy Scriptures.
It is unwise for present day translators to base their modern versions on
recent papyri discoveries, Vaticanus B, and Sinaiticus A because all of
these documents came out of Egypt. During the early Christian centuries
Egypt was a land in which heresies were rampant. Indeed, Hills reports that
the texts of all the Bodmer Papyri are error-ridden and have been tampered
with, in part by gnostic heretics. The same is true of the texts of Papyrus
75, B, and Aleph.
Burgon and Miller pointed out this gnostic trait in B and A back in 1896,
and their observations have yet to be refuted. Burgon named the infamous
gnostic teacher, Valentinus (fl. A.D. 150) as the source of some of the
corruptions. There was even a heretical character of the early Egyptian
church; hence it is not surprising that the manuscripts from Egypt were
sprinkled with heretical readings.
We shall now quote some liberal modern scholars with reference to some of
the oldest witnesses so that we may ascertain the character of these
witnesses. Remember the issue is - are not the oldest manuscripts the best?
Again, Scripture indicates such is not necessarily true. We shall refer to
these papyri as though they were men; in other words, the scribes who wrote
them. Let us now consider some of the older material:
P66 editorializes and is very poor and sloppy according to E.C. Colwell. (To
editorialize means to change the material and substitute the editor's
thoughts.) He reports nearly 200 nonsensical readings and 400 mistaken
spellings.
P75 is not as bad as P-66 but Colwell affirms there are over 400 mistakes
which include about 145 misspellings and 257 singular readings of which 25%
are nonsensical.
P45 we are told, has 90 misspellings and 245 singular readings of which 10%
make no sense. As an editor, P-45 is concise but he omits adverbs,
adjectives, nouns, participles, verbs, personal pronouns and frequently
clauses and phrases. He shortens the text at least 50 times into singular
readings.
Clearly, P-45 did not believe he had the Word of God in his hands or he
would have been more circumspect. Colwell credits P-45 with having tried to
produce a "good" copy. Perhaps, if "good" means "readable" but not
"faithful" - for he made many deliberate alterations as Colwell himself
acknowledged.
P46 according to Gunter Zuntz, is neat and copied by a professional, but it
abounds in scribal blunders, omissions and additions.
|
|
|
