The summer term has proven to be a much more at-peace quarter than the Fall, Winter, and Spring quarters ever did. Most of the campus is empty, not even half of the student body is on campus. I am only taking two classes; Lutheran Confessions I (II is later in the summer) and Hermeneutics; so, I can really focus my sights onto only two targets, instead of several moving targets with a strong wind and dense fog; I predict one-hit-kill-shots for both classes. Both professors are great, especially Dr Lewis, who is a man after my own heart (or that I am man after his heart...).
Hermeneutics is all about being a textual critic for the end goal of getting down to the interpretation of a text -- our text being the bible. So, I put on a critical glasses to look at the bible; therefore, I no longer take another's word for the validity of the bible and what it says about the nature of God and his relationship with us, I work to find out for myself. And, so far, our professor has led us through some procedures to achieve this. We take EVERYTHING into consideration. We look at the early manuscripts -- discussing how 'different translations' might have occurred; we look at the text itself -- what are its contemporary historical/cultural implications? Not only theological interpretation, but also to answer, Why did the author write this?
Apparently it is not uncommon for a student, in hermeneutics, to go through a "faith crisis" that is, starts questioning, more than ever, the truth of the bible -- especially the New Testament. This is so, because we study that we no longer have the absolute original text of any of the books! We (today's scholars) have early manuscripts, dating all the way back to 150 AD, but according to most scholars, dates of the actual pen-to-paper (papyrus) of the New Testament happened earlier -- before the turn of the second century. And, on top of that, there are no early/ancient manuscripts that are comprised of the entire bible (all 66 books). So, what do we mean, when we say, "...the bible..."? So, to be brief, hermeneutics studies how to arrive at the conclusion that the bible is actually The Bible.
Most of us have heard the argument that the bible has too many mistakes, and too many translation-related errors; or that the sheer expanse of time claimed between Genesis and Revelation renders the bible fallible, or even, that the bible is somehow a conspiracy. However, there is more evidence pointing to the validity of The Bible than there is pointing to Armstrong's moon landing!
All of this "conversation" (above) is mainly from the fact that textual variants exist. These are differences between manuscripts. So far, biblical scholars (such as internationally respected, Dr. Voelz) have come up with two main possibilities to explain why these variants occur:
1) The variants stem from accidental errors in copying.
When the books of the bible (or what would eventually become the books of the bible) were first being spread throughout the known world, most of the transmission was orally. But as the Church grew, followers of "The Way" (as the Apostle Paul says in the Book of Acts) soon developed copying centers, called Scriptoriums, where copyists would copy scripture. In fact, an early canon (an early formed group of books that would later contribute to the Christian Canon -- The Bible) would have been the letters (epistles) from Paul and the four gospels. All written in ancient Greek, specifically Koine/Koinh Greek (basically the common language of the known world, similar to basic English today). Anyway, back to the point, manuscripts from this period show signs of 'mistakes'. In these scriptoriums, an orator would read aloud the scriptures and the copyists would copy. Naturally, mistakes would occur; some Koine/h Greek words sound similar. For example: TA SUMERON vs TO SUMERON; both italicized words represent the Koine/h definite article and both have a near identical pronunciation. In addition, on the manuscripts are evidence of editorial marks. Roughly speaking, when a copyist was finished with a copy of the gospel according to Matthew, his boss would pick it up and edit it. A perfectly imperfect-human system!
2) The variants stem from intentional changes
What if an individual copyist wanted to add something to the text that was not said aloud by the orator? This would cause a difference between his text and the other copied texts. The result, a textual variant.
Consider Galatians 4:7,
The English Standard Version (ESV) reads: "So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God."
The New International Version (NIV) reads: "So you are no longer a slave, but God's child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir
The New King James Version (NKJV) reads: "Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ"
Now consider my Greek translation from the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece: 28th Edition (NA28): "So that you are no more a servant, but a son, and if a son, also an heir through God."
Inside the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament is the Textual Apparatus -- this tool is basically a half page, on every page of footnotes that discusses the existence and the location of the textual variants within the text.
The chosen text, that is the text that reads the New Testament in the NA28 ends Galatians 4:7 with "...through God."
However, several textual variants are represented in the Textual Apparatus...
******************************************************************************
A page from Jude in Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece: 28th Edition shows a good example of how the Textus Receptus or the "received text" /chosen text/ the one that we read (by the editors of NA28), and the Textual Apparatus work together on the same page:
Above is the text, in Koine/h Greek, and below (the space) is the Textual Apparatus with textual variants, according to each verse. The editors of this book constructed this apparatus, showing the variants, found in the actual manuscripts. Ultimately, when I bought the NA28, I was buying the editors' best guess -- based off of lifetimes of research and study in several fields -- of what the original text would have looked like.
******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
Now, do we (as mankind) have The Bible, in its original form?
Probably not.
But with the text (above) and with the textual apparatus (below), are we close?
Yes. Probably very close. Close enough that we can, with confidence, call what we have The Bible.
Basically, the NA28 is one-big-spinal-bound-book that lets the reader see the evidence for The Bible.
It is a lot of evidence!
The above example of an intentional textual variant is small in magnitude.
In the end, what is the difference between "through God" or "through Jesus" or"through Christ" or any combination of these? I am not denying that this variant, and others like it were intentional, I have no problem confessing that; however, I am arguing its magnitude. Evidence shows that the author (or the copyist) of Galatians may have attempted to harmonize the Book with Romans. In fact, the last variant listed in the textual apparatus is identical to the text in Romans 8. And if that's not the case of what happened, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that a copyist heard "through God" but, instead, wrote "through Jesus/Christ/Christ Jesus/Jesus Christ" The difference and thus the theological significance is minimal.
*(The seasoned biblical textual critic would even say that since each variant has the same Greek preposition: DIA, "through, on account of, on behalf of, according to," the theological implications in each variant are relatively the same, if not, identical.)
Well, there is a difference, and such difference could show in a pastor's sermon, depending on what variant he chooses; BUT the point is this: Does it change The Gospel? Even without going that far, I can make the argument that these variants are synonymous! And then, therefore, they do not change the gospel according to The Bible. The reality is 99% of the textual variants within scripture are represented with this example! That abolishes every argument that attacks the truth that The Bible witnesses to! (tell your friends)
2) Intentional changes continued...
In addition to the variants like the example above which have little or no affect on the interpretation of scripture, there are other variants that should be identified and thoroughly considered.
For example: Mark 1:40-42 (Jesus Cleanses a Leper)
And a leper came to [Jesus], imploring him, and kneeling said to him, "If you will, you can make me clean." (41) Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him and said to him, "I will; be clean."
And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean.
The NIV reads:
A man with leprosy came to [Jesus] and begged him on his knees, "If you are willing, you can make me clean."
(41) Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!"
Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed.
What happened? Is Jesus furious or is he compassionate?
Both English translations are from the Greek. However, each English edition is apparently looking at different textual variants within the same Greek text.
The NA28 reads with the Greek word: "ὀργισθείς," meaning "becoming angry" However, there is a textual variant. The textual apparatus, again, where the variants are listed for each verse, reads, for verse 41, "σπλαγχνισθείς", meaning "filled with compassion," or "compassionately."
So, first: why does this variant exist? Remember, all variants have human origins; meaning, all the textual variants were originally written by humans, for a reason.
One possible reason is this: what's the easier reading? An angry Jesus, or a compassionate Jesus? What is interesting is that the NA28 editors chose the Greek word ὀργισθείς for the textus receptus. Each Greek word has its evidence, however, the editors chose ὀργισθείς based on that it was most likely the original word used in Mark 1:41. What makes more sense, a scribe switching ὀργισθείς to σπλαγχνισθείς.
The NA28 reads with the Greek word: "ὀργισθείς," meaning "becoming angry" However, there is a textual variant. The textual apparatus, again, where the variants are listed for each verse, reads, for verse 41, "σπλαγχνισθείς", meaning "filled with compassion," or "compassionately."
So, first: why does this variant exist? Remember, all variants have human origins; meaning, all the textual variants were originally written by humans, for a reason.
One possible reason is this: what's the easier reading? An angry Jesus, or a compassionate Jesus? What is interesting is that the NA28 editors chose the Greek word ὀργισθείς for the textus receptus. Each Greek word has its evidence, however, the editors chose ὀργισθείς based on that it was most likely the original word used in Mark 1:41. What makes more sense, a scribe switching ὀργισθείς to σπλαγχνισθείς.
or σπλαγχνισθείς to ὀργισθείς ("angry" to "compassionate" or "compassionate" to "angry")?????
Humans are a lot like water -- taking the path of least resistance. Clearly, the harder/harsher reading recounts Jesus reacting in "anger," so, if there is a change, which there is, according to the evidence, the change that makes most sense is the former. Consider the 200 AD scribe! The Jesus Christ he is most familiar with is the "Buddy Jesus Christ!"
Humans are a lot like water -- taking the path of least resistance. Clearly, the harder/harsher reading recounts Jesus reacting in "anger," so, if there is a change, which there is, according to the evidence, the change that makes most sense is the former. Consider the 200 AD scribe! The Jesus Christ he is most familiar with is the "Buddy Jesus Christ!"
Mark 1:41:
"No probs, bro! Totes healed!"
#YOLO
#UNLESSyoureSAVEDbyME
*pound it*
The cultural norms of the day were that lepers stayed away from others. And in Mark begins his gospel with Jesus and his disciples entering the city gates -- which is precisely where the leper(s) would be -- outside the city to not inoculate the population. Now, wouldn't Jesus of Nazareth acknowledge these norms in his lifetime? Of course he would! before you disagree, consider that these norms ultimately crucified him, both religious and civil norms!
The next question is: Does it change the gospel?
NO!
In fact, I think it enhances it: Jesus heals, even when he is "indignant" or "angry." Will it change a sermon -- depending on which variant is chosen by the pastor? YES.
The fact is that this variant is an example of the more potent variants. The reality is: No authentic textual variants jeopardize the gospel. (tell your friends)
In closing, what does it mean to be "God inspired"? Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul lapse into convulsions as the Holy Spirit took hold of them?
Maybe.
But probably not. In fact, the book of Acts recounts Luke as a researcher, who collected eye witness accounts and considered other texts before finishing his. Is the gospel according to Luke still "God Inspired."
What exactly does "God Inspired" look like? Did divine inspiration stop after Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul dotted their last periods? OR, Did divine inspiration continue through the centuries in the transmission of the scriptures? Without a doubt, God wrote his bible, but what did/does that look like?
"The Bible has been translated too many times to be rendered as authoritative."
FALSO!
The Bible has been translated ONCE many times. We still have the Greek, y'all! I just typed some for you.
Greek to Latin (The Vulgate) = once
Greek to German (our boy Luther!) = once
Greek to English = once
Greek to etc... = once
Total = ONCE
The English John 3:16 that you read in your NIV, ESV, NLT, NKJV, CPR, FBI edition is based on Greek manuscripts. Proof is in the prof! My Greek professor, Dr Jim Voelz served on the international translation committee of one of these as a language and theology consultant.
In the end, we have certainty that our bible serves as The Bible, written by The God, through His People, for Their Salvation, through Him!
May the faith, hope and love of Jesus Christ preserve us all!
No comments:
Post a Comment