The more manuscripts that are available the more differences are found and a sort of family tree of manuscripts can be pieced together. For the New Testament the main branches of this family free are the Alexandrian, Byzantine and Western text types. The oldest of these, and closest to the original, is the Alexandrian and with the current wealth of manuscripts and fragments scholars are confident that they have a composite text which is very close approximation to the original New Testament autographs to use as the basis for translation in to other languages. An obvious exception to this generalisation is the New King James Version which uses a type similar to the Byzantine text since that is what was available when the original King James Version was translated and the translators of the updated version wanted to remain reasonably faithful to the original KJV. This also means that the concordances familiar to Christadelphians such as Strong’s and Young’s are also based on the less reliable Byzantine text type.
What I want to do in this section is to look at a couple of examples of what textual criticism has been able to identify.
Matthew 1:16
Having already spent some time in the birth narratives I thought I'd look at the first chapter of Matthew for my first example which is of a small change that may otherwise go unnoticed by the average Bible reader.
If you have a modern version of the Bible such as the NET, Matthew 1:16 reads:
Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.
But there is also a note in the NET that includes two textual variants as well as the one that is considered original making three options to choose from. One of those variants reads, "Joseph, to whom the virgin Mary, being betrothed, bore Jesus, who is called Christ." This reading makes it very clear that Mary was a virgin and was not married to Joseph. This is interesting because it highlights what is not said in the version considered to be original. The original seems to state that Joseph and Mary were married, while making no mention that she was a virgin. The second alternative, which is only found in the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, reads, "Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, fathered Jesus who is called the Christ". This rendering makes Joseph definitely Jesus father. The thinking of scholars is that the first option was an intentional change made by a scribe to make his Christology clear, and the second accidental while following the formula of the previous generations.
I have a couple of other comments to make on this section of the Bible before we carry on. First, if we look at the next verse, "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to Christ, fourteen generations." But if we go back and count the generations we actually find that there are 14 generations in the first two sets but only 13 in the last.
Secondly, this genealogy can be compared with that in Luke and there is a difference that is normally resolved by inerrantists by suggesting that the genealogy in Matthew is through Joseph while that in Luke is through Mary. However, this doesn't work quite as neatly as expected because Luke 3:23 specifically starts with Joseph and his father Heli. Matthew on the other hand says that Joseph's father was Jacob in Matthew 1:16.
Mark 16:9-20
The second place I'd like to look is at the end of Mark, another place that got a mention earlier on. This section is highlighted in most modern Bibles as not included in the earliest manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), and scholars concur that it is not an original. Again there are various options for the ending of Mark, but I just want to consider the short ending that finishes in verse 8 and the longer ending that goes through to verse 20. It is thought that the writer of Mark originally ended abruptly at verse 8. So abruptly that later in transmission the longer ending was added to provide more of a conclusion to the work.
If we look at both of these endings independently we find that there are inconsistencies. If we finish at verse 8, as in the original, we are left with the women running away from the tomb and not telling anyone what happened because they were afraid. If we read on though the remainder of the chapter it reads as if Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, who was not at all surprised or afraid, but went to tell the others. This ending is also odd because in verse 7 it says that Jesus has gone ahead of them to Galilee which is different to what is recorded in Luke 24 where Jesus speaks to them and tells them to stay in Jerusalem. The distance between these two places is around 68 miles as the crow flies based on my Google earth measurement - a significant distance to walk.
next >
If we look at both of these endings independently we find that there are inconsistencies. If we finish at verse 8, as in the original, we are left with the women running away from the tomb and not telling anyone what happened because they were afraid. If we read on though the remainder of the chapter it reads as if Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, who was not at all surprised or afraid, but went to tell the others. This ending is also odd because in verse 7 it says that Jesus has gone ahead of them to Galilee which is different to what is recorded in Luke 24 where Jesus speaks to them and tells them to stay in Jerusalem. The distance between these two places is around 68 miles as the crow flies based on my Google earth measurement - a significant distance to walk.
next >
No comments:
Post a Comment