A REALISTIC APPROACH TO TEXTUAL CRITICISM
A STUDY BY
GARY RAY BRANSCOME
Since the
nineteenth century a great deal of time and effort has been expended to
determine the exact reading of the original text of Scripture. Some men
have devoted years of research to the quest, and that research has
brought many new manuscripts to light. However, even though we now have
extra-Biblical evidence that the New Testament was written in the first
century AD, when it comes to resolving the minor differences between
certain manuscripts we are not one bit closer to settling the matter
than we were fifty years ago. Furthermore, it is my contention that
science will never be able to resolve those differences, because the
knowledge necessary to resolve them is beyond the realm of science. For
that reason, I am issuing a call for a new approach to the subject, an
approach that I believe is more realistic because it recognizes the
limitations of science instead of ignoring them.
In issuing this
call I do not wish to overlook the many benefits that have come from
research in the past. Such research has done much to affirm the
reliability of Scripture as we have it today, and new manuscript finds
enable us to be more certain than ever before that Scripture has been
accurately preserved. In addition, virtually all manuscripts whether
early or late agree well over ninety percent of the time. However, in
those passages where a significant difference in wording does exist,
the customary approach will never be able to tell us which version is
that of the original text.
In saying this, it
should be self-evident that the manuscripts say nothing of their own
ancestry or accuracy. For that reason, any attempt to determine the
ancestry or accuracy of a manuscript must deal with assumptions, and
that is exactly where we run into problems.
Much of the
controversy over texts stems from the fact that certain prominent men
in the field of textual research have attempted to go beyond the
evidence by reasoning from assumptions. Nevertheless, assumptions are
notoriously unreliable, no matter how reasonable they may sound.
Moreover, the fact that a conclusion will sound logical if you start
from the right assumptions, does not change the fact that the
conclusion will be wrong, if the assumption is wrong. Therefore, if we
really want the truth, we need to stick to the facts and eliminate
assumptions.
[Note: The fact that every attempt to
supplement Scripture with assumptions leads to conclusions that
contradict Scripture is a divine testimony to the fact that reasoning
from assumptions is not a reliable methodology.]
One prominent
assumption holds that the older a manuscript is, the less likely it is
to contain error. However, even though that assumption sounds
plausible, it is not always true. It would be true if every copyist
exercised the same degree of care, but they do not. For example, in the
second century Ignatius referred to corrupt manuscripts that he had
encountered, and any one of those corrupt manuscripts would be more
likely to contain error than late manuscripts that were copied from
good copies of the original (Philadelphians 2:20). Therefore, the age
of a manuscript is no guarantee of its accuracy. And, because the time
period between generations varies, age is no guarantee that a
manuscript has gone through fewer generations of copying. On the
contrary, because some manuscripts were copied from very ancient texts,
while others were copied from relatively recent copies, it would be
foolhardy to simply assume that that the age of a manuscript determines
its accuracy when we have no way of knowing if it really is more
accurate.
Another prominent
assumption holds that addition to the text is more likely to occur than
omission. However, we know that is not generally the case. While it
would be true if every scribe took the same precautions, and if the
same care was taken in the early centuries that was taken in later
centuries, omissions are much more common than additions (ask any
secretary). Furthermore, we know that omissions did occur, for Ignatius
(in the passage referred to above) spoke of manuscripts that omitted
things from the text.
I might also point
out that there are many questions surrounding the practice of grouping
texts into text types. For example: Why should a few oddball
manuscripts that disagree with each other in many places, be called a
“text type”? Why should such “text types” be treated as if they were
equal in standing to the traditional text, when the traditional text
consists of thousands of manuscripts that are all in substantial
agreement. And, why should we overlook the fact that there are a number
of very early manuscripts that do not fit into any of the “text types”.
That issue is just another reason why I see a need for a fresh approach
to manuscript evidence.
A
REALISTIC APPROACH
The approach I
suggest is neither unprecedented nor unrealistic. I believe that we
should simply examine the evidence, learn what we can from such an
examination, and then admit the limitations of our knowledge, instead
of trying to supplement that knowledge with assumptions. In fact, the
advisability of admitting the limitations of our knowledge can be
inferred from the fact that every failure to do so when formulating
doctrine leads to error.
At the same time,
we need to remind ourselves that readings which do nothing more than
restate what the Bible says elsewhere are still the Word of God, in the
same sense that any Bible quote is the Word of God (Revelation 19:10,
John 11:51). Furthermore, because God designed the Bible to testify of
Christ, it would be far more realistic for us to expect a corruption of
the text to obscure that testimony, than improve it (John 5:39 and
20:31).
We also need to
remember that God will preserve the words of His inspired book (Psalm
12:6,7). He has done so in the past by preserving ancient manuscripts,
and by keeping uninspired books out of the cannon. And, He does so
today by stirring researchers to comb through ancient records, and to
discover the evidence that His words have come down to us virtually
unchanged.
However, due to the
assumptions that are currently in vogue in the field of textual
research, two fourth century manuscripts (known as Vaticanus and
Sinaiticus) are widely promoted even though they differ from most of
the other manuscripts in over five thousand places. In saying that, I
want to emphasize the fact that most of those differences are very
minor, amounting to little more than variations in spelling or word
order. Nevertheless, significant differences do exist in over two
hundred places. Furthermore, because very early manuscripts can usually
be found to support either reading, there is no way that we can ever
know which reading represents the original, in the same sense that God
knows.
Be that as it may,
the fact that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus both omit Mark 16:9-20, even
though those verses are found in every other Greek manuscript in the
world (that contains Mark), raises a serious question as to their
reliability. Those verses are also found in all Syriac versions except
the Sinatic Syriac, and in all Old Latin manuscripts except “K”. They
were also quoted by Hippolytus in 200AD, by Irenaeus in 180AD, by
Tatian in 175AD, and by Justin martyr in 150AD. Therefore, the only
reason that they are called in question at all has to do with the
prevalent assumption that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are more reliable
simply because they were produced at government expense (an assumption
that anyone familiar with government waste and bungling must find
laughable).
I might also add
that without those verses the Gospel of Mark ends abruptly and is
incomplete, and all but two of those verses give us information that is
confirmed by the other Gospels. In addition, the two unique verses are
in harmony with Mark’s emphasis on the miraculous, with stories that
occasionally come to us from the mission field (Acts 28:3-6), and with
other statements that Christ made (John 14:12, Matthew 17:20, Matthew
21:21).
Another passage of
Scripture that is missing from the Vaticanus-Sinaiticus text, is the
story of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11). In this case,
the manuscript evidence tells us only that copies of the Gospel of John
that include these verses, as well as copies that omit them, were
probably being circulated within the lifetime of John. In addition,
support for this story can be found in the Didache (150-200AD), in
statements by Jerome (4th century), in the Apostolic Constitutions (4th
century), in statements by Pacian (370AD), in Montanist writings (2nd
century), and in Eusebius’ history (324AD) which mentions that Papias
(150AD) regarded this story as part of Scripture.
At the same time,
the way that Jesus dealt with this woman is in perfect harmony with the
way in which He dealt with a number of similar situations (Luke
7:36-50, John 4:6-30, Matthew 9:10,11, Mark 2:16, Luke 5:30, also
compare John 5:14 with 8:11). Moreover, without those verses there is
an abrupt jump in the flow of thought.
The
Vaticanus-Sinaiticus text also omits any mention of the angel stirring
the water (John 5:3b-4). And, here again an objective look at the
evidence only tells us that both readings existed at a very early time.
Nevertheless, Tertullian cited this passage in 200AD, Didymus cited it
in 379AD, and the majority of Greek manuscripts preserve it intact.
Furthermore, when we look to God’s Word, we discover that the verses in
question are only a small part of the story found in John 5:2-16. And,
there is no doubt about the authenticity of that story, for it is found
in all of the manuscripts. It is also significant that the story does
not make much sense when those verses are omitted from the text. Not
only is verse seven worded in a way that assumes that the reader
already has the information contained in verse four, but verse four
explains why the impotent man spoke of others getting into the pool
before him, when Jesus asked him if he wanted to be healed.
In John 9:35, the
Vaticanus-Sinaiticus text changes the words “Son of God” to “son of
man”. In this case the reading “Son of God” is found in Tatians's
Diatesseron (180AD), as well as in most Greek manuscripts that contain
John. Therefore, we know that the reading is very old. Although both
readings, “Son of God” and “son of man,” are found elsewhere in
Scripture, no one would even question the traditional reading, if it
were not for the overblown affection some have for the
Vaticanus-Sinaiticus text. I might also point out that in this passage
of Scripture Christ was teaching the need for faith, and He tended to
emphasize His deity when asking others to believe on Him (John
3:16,35,36, John 5:25, John 6:40, John 11:4,25,26,27).
CONCLUSION
It should be clear
that I am advocating an approach to manuscript evidence that will lead
to different conclusions from those currently in vogue. However, I
believe that this approach will strengthen faith, and heal division,
where the popular approach has done just the opposite (Matthew
7:16,20).