As the text containing Alpha and Omega in Revelation 1:11 has no uncial support or any manuscripts prior to the ninth century it clearly lacks authority and that is why it is not included in most recent translations including the NWT.
The textual support available then was primarily two rather inferior manuscripts in the university library at Basle, both dating from about the twelfth century, as well as the singular incomplete manuscript of Revelation mentioned in my previous post. Earnest
JWs get all excited about stuff like this because they think that they've stumbled on some great revelation. The editors of the NWT LEAPED on Nestle 17 and on Westcott & Hort because of the omissions rampant in these two Greek Texts that seemed to give tacit support to their Arian bias.
They were especially delighted about the excision of the comma from 1 John 5:7 because they were convinced that the belief in the Doctrine of the Trinity rested squarely upon this verse.
After the 'discovery' of the newer 'Critical Texts" other variant passages got a lot of Watchtower attention. So when I saw this discussion about Revelation 1:11, and the 'learned' comments that followed I couldn't resist making a statement. So
There are four kinds of Greek manuscripts that we have in our possession today: 1) papyri, 2) uncials [majuscules], 3) cursives [miniscules], and 4) lectionaries." (Defending The King James Bible by D. A. Waite; p. 53, Brackets mine).
The surviving Greek manuscripts can be catalogued as follows:
Uncial 299
Minuscule 2,812
Lectionaries 2,281
Papyri 98
Total 5,490
Of these most, except the papyri were available within a short time after the 1611 edition of KJV and therefore certainly had some impact on much later editions of the KJV.
But also, of these there are more that agree with the Received Text that under girds the KJV that there are that agree with the more modern 'Critical Text" by (in some estimations) a margin of almost 99 to 1! (See discussion below)
Furthermore, as you will see at the end of this article, the uncials disagree with EACH OTHER in more than 3,000 PLACES! How can you ask us to be excited about two siblings who are so busy fighting with each other that they are in danger of MISSING THE WHOLE POINT that they were trying to make in the first place
Consider these thoughts made in a presentation By Dr. David R. Brown, to the Annual Meeting of the Dean Burgon Society,* in August 2000
A REVIEW
By way of review, I remind you that the Old Testament was originally written primarily in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek. Further, it must be remember that there are no original autographs of either the Hebrew Old Testament or the Greek New Testament. Yet, the Old and New Testaments have been preserved in apographs (exemplars or copies) of the originals. Since the focus in this paper is the New Testament it is important to know that there are at least 5309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or parts of the New Testament. In addition there are more than 19,000 ancient New Testament manuscripts in Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and other language versions. The oldest copies of the New Testament know to exist are NOT Greek copies but the Syriac and the Old Latin versions (pre-Jeromes Latin Vulgate). The Old Syriac "is a good translation from the Greek, and exists practically complete in about 46 manuscripts." (General Biblical Introduction by Herbert Miller, 1937; 240-41). The oldest of those manuscripts is from the 4 th or 5 th century but the form of text they preserved dates from the close of the second or the beginning of the third century. "The Old Latin version was likely translated from the Greek in roughly 157 AD." (A Plain Introduction to New Testament Criticism, II, 1894; Scrivner; pp.42-42). Finally, there are more than 24,000 handwritten copies of the New Testament have survived.
http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/uncials.htm
Earnest makes the statement that:
Revelation 1:11 has no uncial support or any manuscripts prior to the ninth century
But this is misleading on many grounds not the least of which is the fact that to date only about 10% of the uncial data has been analyzed and collated. The 20 th century English-language get much aplomb, because they supposedly rest upon the evidence of 'older MSS' including these uncials. In fact the three most acclaimed uncials are rife with problems of their own
Furthermore, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, which White often cites to support his errors (i.e. Rev. 1:11), makes an error in John 21:7 and Romans 16:1, carelessly omitting words which are found in the majority of manuscripts, the KJV and even new versions.
Readers (& White) naturally assume that the term 'Majority Text' and the German sigla "M" represent a numerical majority of a full collation of the five thousand-plus Greek New Testament documents. Nothing could be further from the truth. This so-called 'Majority Text' White cites is based on von Soden's collation of 414 of the 5,000+ documents. Even these 414 were not fully collated. White must not have carefully read the preface which admits, "We were forced to rely on von Soden's work...his presentation of the data leaves much to be desired....The present edition does not cite the testimony of the ancient versions or church fathers."
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~seccomn/biblever/FBNS124.html So, Dr. Brown leaves us with some things to ponder regarding these three allegedly superior MSS:Frederik Wisse, in his The Profile Method for the Classification and Evaluation of Manuscript Evidence as Applied to the Continuous Greek Text of the Gospel of Luke: Studies and Documents (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1982) pp. 16-17, found a LARGE number of errors in von Soden's work. His conclusion was that "von Soden's inaccuracies cannot be tolerated for any purpose. His apparatus is useless for a reconstruction of the text of the MSS he used." Even the editors admit, "all decisions about M p t [even split] readings are provisional and tentative." (Hodges 1985, xxii) Kevin James in his brilliant book, The Corruption of the Word: The Failure of Modern New Testament Scholarship notes, "We do know that at times von Soden examined only 13 of the more than 300 manuscripts that make up his Kx group to determine the wording" (p. 248). (It is important to note that Hodges has not misrepresented his work, but unlearned students like White have. In Luke 1 von Soden cites 120 MSS; Wisse profiles nearly 1400. When the KJV Departs from the Majority Text by J.A. Moorman summarizes such findings. Wisse explains that, "Of the 99 checked MSS, 76 were missing one or more times when they should have been cited, or were listed when they should not have been. This breaks down to 59 MSS which were missing in von Soden's apparatus from one to four times, and 39 which were added incorrectly from one to six times" (pp. 16,17).
In conclusion, I will say the 'Majority Text' White cites is based on a collation of less than 10% of the extant documents. These 10% were not fully collated and were very frequently miscited. H.C. Hoskier said of von Soden's work, "I regret to have to condemn it strongly... the apparatus is positively honeycombed with errors." (JTS, 15-1914, p. 307) David Cloud.
"How, then, do we find the Bible version that pleases God? By reversing the process and naturalistic reasoning, by beginning with Christ and the Gospel and proceeding according to the logic of faith. Since the Gospel is true, the Bible which contains this Gospel is infallibly inspired. And since the Bible is infallibly inspired, it has been preserved down through the ages by God's special providence, not secretly in holes and caves and on forgotten library shelves, but publicly in the usage of God's Church, the Old Testament through the Old Testament priesthood, and the New Testament through the New Testament priesthood, namely, the universal priesthood of believers. Moreover, the providential preservation of the Scriptures did not cease with the invention of printing, for why would God preserve the sacred text at one time and not at another time? Hence the formation of the Textus Receptus was God-guided, and this text is therefore a trustworthy reproduction of the divinely inspired original text. And so is the King James Version and all other faithful translations of the Textus Receptus. Hence today and for the foreseeable future the King James Version is the English Bible that truly pleases God." Dr. Edward F. Hills on the King James Biblehttp://www.deanburgonsociety.org/barnet91.htm#CONCLUSION:
Codex Alexandrinus (A) This codex was the first of the so-called "great uncials" to become known to western paleographers The New Testament of Alexandrinus The New Testament has lost from 19 to 25 leaves of the Gospel of Matthew, as far as Matthew 25:6 . Strangely there are two leaves missing from the Gospel of John (John 6:50 to 8:52) which cover the much disputed passage about the adulterous woman. But, what is amazing is that the Gospels follow the so-called Syrian type text, the ancestor of the Textus Receptus, which is evidence that the traditional text type did have an early origin! There are three leaves missing in 2Corinthians containing 4:13 to 12:6 . This manuscript ends with Mark 16:8 , therefore leaving out 9-20. It omits John 5:4 (For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.) and 1 John 5:7 (For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.). There are additions to the New Testament as well. According to the table of contents the New Testament once contained the Psalms of Solomon, though it is now missing. Also added to the New Testament are the Epistle of St. Clement of Rome and the II Epistle of Clement. In these two letters "Clement of Alexandria teaches that: [1] Men are saved by works (2 Clement 2:12,15); [2] Christians are in danger of going to Hell (2 Clement 3:8); [3]Christians don't get new bodies at the resurrection (2 Clement 4:2); [4] He was a prophet who wrote Scripture (2 Clement 4:11); [5] The male and female in 1 Corinthians 11:9 9 were anger and concupiscence (when they were speaking of Christ's being the head, then the husband, followed by the wife in order or chain of authority). Not believing the Bible literally, Clement both fantasized and spiritualized the Scriptures." (Which Version is The Bible? By Floyd Jones Th.D, Ph.D; Published by Global Evangelism of Goodyear Arizona; p.69). Codex Vaticanus (B)The New Testament of Vaticanus Coming to the New Testament, Barry Burtons writes in his book Let's Weigh the Evidence -- "it omits Matthew 3 , the Pauline Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon), Hebrews 9:14 to 13:25 , and all of Revelation... in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the same sentences in the same places." Floyd Jones further notes that Matthew 16:2-3 and Romans 16:24 are missing. There is yet another strange thing about Vaticanus that John Burgon tells us about relating to the last twelve verses of Mark. "To say that in the Vatican Codex (B), which is unquestionably the oldest we posses, St. Mark's Gospel ends abruptly at the eight verse of the sixteenth chapter, and that the customary subscription (Kata Mapkon) follows, is true; but it is far from being the whole truth. It requires to be stated in addition that the scribe, whose plan is found to have been to begin every fresh book of the Bible at the top of the next ensuing column to that which contained the concluding words of the preceding book, has at the close of St. Mark's Gospel deviated from his else invariable practice. He has left in this place one column entirely vacant. It is the only vacant column in the whole manuscript - a blank space abundantly sufficient to contain the twelve verses which he nevertheless withheld. Why did he leave that column vacant? What can have induced the scribe on this solitary occasion to depart from his established rule? The phenomenon (I believe I was the first to call distinct attention to it) is in the highest degree significant, and admits only one interpretation. The older manuscript from which Codex B was copied must have infallibly contained the twelve verses in dispute. The copyist was instructed to leave them out - and he obeyed; but he prudently left a blank space in memoriam rei. Never was a blank more intelligible! Never was silence more eloquent! By this simple expedient, strange to relate, the Vatican Codex is made to refute itself even while it seems to be bearing testimony against the concluding verses of St. Mark's Gospel, by withholding them; for it forbids the inference which, under ordinary circumstances, must have been drawn from that omission. It does more. By leaving room for the verses it omits, it brings into prominent notice at the end of fifteen senturies and a half, a more ancient witness than itself." (Revision Revised: The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of St. Mark by John William Burgon; p. 86-87) Codex Sinaiticus a (a or ALEPH) There is one particular omission that made a real impact upon my mind, that I believe is important to beings into the picture at this point. Several years back I went to the British Museum, specifically to take a look at Sinaiticus. To my surprise I discovered that, while Mark 16:9-20 indeed was missing, it was clear to see that it had originally been there, but had been pumiced (erased) out. The space was still evident in the codex and the letters could faintly be seen. There are numerous other problems with this codex as well. For instance, it includes two uninspired books in the New Testament. The entire Epistle of Barnabas (which teaches baptizmal regeneration), except six leaves, and the Shepherd of Hermas, which is incomplete.
Finally, I must point out something ironic about these two alleged "oldest and best" manuscripts. They do not agree with each other! "There are 3036 differences between the readings in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in the Gospels alone" (Codex B and Its Allies by Herman Hoskier; volume 2, p.1). John Burgon points out that it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two manuscripts differ, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree. We should find that very disturbing. My research has led me to conclude that the three "Great Uncials" are at best unreliable. I am thankful that the Bibles of the Reformation were based on what came to be called the Traditional text or the Textus Receptus.Professor Daniel Wallace helps us to exercise caution before going too far to the OTHER extreme, though. When one considers the question of which 'text' is superior the Received Text (Byzantine) which was the exemplar for all English-language Bibles before 1880 (including KJV); or the Critical Text (Alexandrian) favored by Westcott & Hort, Eberhardt Nestle, Kurt and Barbara Aland, and others he or she must realize that the controversy centers around only a SMALL percentage of the entire New Testament. And that NONE OF THE DISPUTED PASSAGES have any impact upon Salvation!
To this may be added the testimony of Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, the pre-eminent British authority on New Testament manuscripts at the turn of the twentieth century
"We may indeed believe that He would not allow His Word to be seriously corrupted, or any part of it essential to man's salvation to be lost or obscured; but the differences between the rival types of text is not one of doctrine. No fundamental point of doctrine rests upon a disputed reading: and the truths of Christianity are as certainly expressed in the text of Westcott and Hort as in that of Stephanus."Frederic G. Kenyon, Handbook of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Macmillan and Co., 1901), p.271. Cited in: "Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?" By Douglas Kutilek http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html 2002-06-21
Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D. professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary See also: kjvonly.org. http://www.kjvonly.org/gary/great_which_bible_pr.htm * The Dean Burgon Society was established in Philadelphia in 1978ConclusionIs the majority text identical with the original text? The present writer does not think so. There are no doctrinal reasons that compel him to believe that it is, and when all the evidence is weighed--both external and internal--it is quite compelling against such a view. Does this mean that the majority text is worthless? Not at all. For one thing, it agrees with the critical text 98 percent of the time. For another, several isolated Byzantine readings are early, and where they have good internal credentials, reasoned eclectics adopt them as original. But this is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a wholesale adoption of the majority text. And that is precisely the issue taken up in this article.
"The Dean Burgon Society, Inc. proudly takes its name in honor of Rev. John William Burgon (1813--1888), the Dean of Chichester in England, whose tireless and accurate scholarship and contribution in the area of New Testament Textual Criticism; whose defense of the Traditional Greek New Testament Text against its many enemies; and whose firm belief in the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, we believe, have all been unsurpassed either before or since his time!"[/quote]
Defense of the Scriptures.
Over a hundred years ago there was a warrior and fighter for the Scriptures. His name was John William Burgon. This champion was from a different time and century from you and me; nevertheless, he was a staunch defender of Bibliology. As you know, this discipline is the bedrock of all theology.
Edited by - revdrjohnson on 21 June 2002 13:54:37
Edited by - revdrjohnson on 21 June 2002 14:1:9