The manusripts used for NWT Translation

by badboy 27 Replies latest jw friends

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    NeonMadman....I agree with you about the lack of evidence that YHWH was ever in manuscripts of the NT (such that the NWT's "restoration" of the divine name is really an act of eisegesis); however I do disagree with your statement that

    The only way that alterations could be made that would be undetectable through textual criticism would be if the actual autograph copy written by an apostle or other writer were somehow altered on the way to its destination.

    Textual criticism has little ability to detact early alterations to the text because there are few manuscripts available that go back to the second century and those that do (papyri) are very fragmentary and of limited use compared to the codices of the fourth century. The vast bulk of manuscripts (80-90%) attest the inferior Byzantine or Majority text-type which is rife with scribal errors, interpolations, and omissions, whereas the earlier papyri of third and second centuries, while attesting a superior Alexandrine text-type, are fragmentary, contain their own errors, and are still at least a century removed from the originals. The papyrus that comes to closest in time to the original, the Rylands fragment of John, is a tiny scrap attesting just parts of two or three verses. The earliest manuscripts for 1 and 2 Timothy date only to the fourth century. Since the archetypes of the major textual families date back to the second and third centuries, it is certainly possible that early textual changes can remain undetected by textual criticism. In other cases, it may be unclear which option is original because both variants have early attestation. That the second century was a time of textual fluidity for the NT can be seen in the patristic remarks about heretics like Marcion (c. 145) altering the text of Luke and Paul's epistles, the popularity of gospel harmonies (c. 150 for Justin Martyr's harmony), and the patristic citations of the NT which themselves evidence features of the later text-types.

    There are also many ways in which changes may have crept into the text of the NT. First of all, what was actually the original autograph? It is generally thought that Paul's scribe made a copy of outgoing letters for Paul's own use; thus minor discrepencies may arise between the two original versions of the letter, and the polished letter sent to the church may not be exactly the same as the copy retained by the author. Moreover, some of Paul's letters were circulated between churches (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:27; Colossians 3:16), leading to the production of local copies. The publication of Paul's epistles as an assembled corpus, however, likely did not occur until after Paul's death and went through stages: (1) An initial seven-letter corpus of letters to the churches, later imitated by John the Presbyter in Revelation (c. 95) and Ignatius of Antioch (c. 115), (2) the addition of 2 Corinthians (which was unknown to Clement of Rome in his letter to the church at Corinth, c. 95) and private notes like Philemon to the corpus, and (3) the addition of the Pastorals. The Pauline editor(s) responsible for the initial publication of Paul's letters, perhaps disciples of his like Timothy or Silvanus, would have thus had opportunity to add their own improvements to strengthen or clarify his points, and even Paul himself would have had the opportunity to revise his own version of his letters. 2 Corinthians is also generally believed to be an edited version of several shorter letters to the church, and the editing process would have also allowed subtle changes to enter into the text. It is also probable that, in the climate of proto-orthodox and proto-gnostic disputes in the first half of the second century, different schismatic groups that both appealed to Paul as their founder produced differing versions of the letters that were influenced by these debates (so that by c. 150 different recensions of Paul's letters were in circulation, including the proto-New Testament assembled by Marcion).

    In the case of the gospels, it is known that they went through several different editions. Since they originally circulated in rather provincial contexts (e.g. Matthew most likely originating in a non-Pauline Jewish-Christian community in Syria), the early versions may not have been widely circulated and quickly superceded by the published editions. This is most clear in the case of Mark (c. 70), which was utilized as a primary source in the gospels of Matthew and Luke (c. 80-100) -- such that 90% of the Markan text is reproduced in Matthew and 60% in Luke. By comparing common omissions and common additions against the canonical Markan text, it is possible to detect an earlier version of the text used by the first and third evangelists which no longer exists as such in Mark. These divergences from canonical Mark are systematic in that the additions and changes to canonical Mark contain distinctive vocabulary and contribute to a baptismal/resurrection mysticism (cf. especially Mark 4:11, 8:31, 9:15, 25-29, 10:24, 38-40, 14:51-52, 16:5), which point to a redaction of Mark after its use by the authors of Matthew and Luke (cf. also the Bethesda section of Mark 6:45-8:26, missing in Luke). There is also the famous lacuna in Mark 10:46 (filled in by Secret Mark), which indicates that something in the pre-canonical version of Mark was omitted here. The original ending to Mark is also likely missing (16:8 seemingly ends in mid-sentence and the Galilee appearance promised in 14:28, 16:7 never occurs), leading second and third century editors to invent several different endings to the gospel; one possible explanation is that the Galilee appearance was present in the original text of Mark (thus Matthew 28:16-20 has such an resurrection appearance), but the editor who devised a more mystical version of the text intentionally omitted the appearance to imply that promised Galilee appearance lies at the beginning of the book in the Galilee ministry that follows Jesus' baptism (thus completing the baptism=death/resurrection symbolism). As for Luke-Acts, there is the problem of the remarkable divergence between the Western and Alexandrine/Majority text-types (cf. especially Luke 3:22, 6:5, 22:17-20, Acts 5:15, 8:36-39, 13:8, 15:20, 29, 21:25, etc.), both deriving from second-century archetypes, and indicating that two major editions of Luke-Acts circulated in the second century (in addition to a third, the version of Luke by Marcion). Although the Alexandrine readings are usually preferred as superior, some of the Western text variants were attested first by the mid-second century (cf. Justin, Dialogue 88, 103.6). The gospel of John also a number of major textual problems and accretions, as discussed by Bultmann, Koester, and other scholars.

  • NeonMadman
    NeonMadman

    Leolaia, I'm not going to try to argue the point of whether there could possibly have been any early alterations to the NT text with you, because frankly, you are out of my league on this. But I would still maintain that there is no evidence of any alterations of the sorts mentioned by badboy. My inclination and training is to believe that the text of the NT is substantially as it was written, based upon the evidence of textual criticism. If we do not have sufficiently early manuscript evidence to say that the text is unquestionably exactly as it was written, then the evidence on which to claim that alterations were made is lacking as well.

    As far as earlier versions of the Gospels, I have no doubt that such existed. I believe that the Gospel accounts were likely circulated orally for a time and were probably compiled late in the apostolic period, with Mark being the earliest and it and the "Q" collection (whether written or oral) influencing Matthew and Luke. I also believe that the Holy Spirit was capable of guiding the process to produce the Gospels as they finally were preserved.

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    badboy,

    What this person said that that they were deliberate alterations,eg one text had been altered so it read masculine, instead of feminine.
    There was a programme about the Church of England controversity about allowing women bishops, one of the arguments is, Junia/Junias mentioned in Corinthians was an apostle.

    Whether Romans 16:7 reads Junia or Junias is not based on textual alteration. The Greek word is Jounian and could refer either (1) to a man with the name 'Junianus', found here in its contracted form, 'Junias' or (2) to a woman with the name of Junia. This name only appears here in the New Testament and the text alone does not indicate the sex of Paul's "relative". There is a variant reading of Julia but it is only supported by one early Greek papyrus and some versions. In rendering it as Junias the NWT is in agreement with the ASV, NASB, NIV, TEV and NAB bible translations.

    One alleged aleraltion is in Matthews's Sermon on the Mount where a masculine noun has been inserted whereas original was neuter(if I remember correctly!).

    Can you be more specific. I couldn't find anything in the sermon which would have relevance to the appointment of women as bishops.

    The only other textual alteration that comes to mind is 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35 which is the scripture about women keeping silent in the congregations. In his commentary on First Corinthians, Gordon Fee argues that it is an interpolation as several manuscripts, chiefly Western, transpose verses 34-35 to follow verse 40. However, there is not much support for his theory. You may wish to read the discussion at section 4.2 of this article.

    Earnest

  • badboy
    badboy

    tHE ALLEGATION IS MADE THAT there was a masculinatizion(sp?) wherein men tryed to put women down.

  • NeonMadman
    NeonMadman
    tHE ALLEGATION IS MADE THAT there was a masculinatizion(sp?) wherein men tryed to put women down.

    Anything can be alleged. What evidence is offered to support the allegation?

  • badboy
    badboy

    This person said,I have forgotten exactly which verse it was,but a masculine word ending has been inserted in one verse which doesn't appear in earlier manuscripts.

  • TheListener
    TheListener

    This is interesting. About a year ago I read a book called "Lost Christianity" which talked about various writings and textual differences and various heresies (as defined by the proto-orthodox christians).

    Very intriguing.

  • TheListener
    TheListener

    Badboy,

    what is the scripture that you're specifically talking about. Couldn't we do some research on the early manuscripts that exist for that scripture and see if the majority or the oldest match with the gender shown today?

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    NeonMadman....I was addressing several of your points at once, so just to clarify things:

    But I would still maintain that there is no evidence of any alterations of the sorts mentioned by badboy.

    I agree with you totally in the matter as it pertains to YHWH in the NT. There is no evidence of that. However, there is evidence that extensive alterations have at times occurred in the transmission of NT books, the NT of Marcion in the first half of the second century being a prime example (cf. the long list itemizing the so-called alterations in Epiphanius and other church fathers).

    My inclination and training is to believe that the text of the NT is substantially as it was written, based upon the evidence of textual criticism. If we do not have sufficiently early manuscript evidence to say that the text is unquestionably exactly as it was written, then the evidence on which to claim that alterations were made is lacking as well.

    I agree that the claim of intentional "alterations" of the NT is sometimes overstated. However, I believe most textual critics recognize that there are limits to their methods and the exact originals are probably irretrievable. The recent study of literature has also raised the issue of whether a single original ever existed (e.g. there were multiple varying copies from the start). With the paucity of second-century manuscripts, it is not possible to detect early changes to the text or reconstruct how the major text families arose. Because these text families do exist and are unquestionably early (as major variants were attested by church fathers in the mid-second century), we do have a lot of evidence that textual changes were made early on. There is also a good deal of internal evidence, as well, which should not be forgotten -- as this has the potential of penetrating the period unattested by external manuscript evidence. My comment in my last message however was aimed less at providing evidence for such changes than addressing the claim that it would have been nearly impossible for such changes to have been made.

    As far as earlier versions of the Gospels, I have no doubt that such existed. I believe that the Gospel accounts were likely circulated orally for a time and were probably compiled late in the apostolic period, with Mark being the earliest and it and the "Q" collection (whether written or oral) influencing Matthew and Luke.

    It is in the case of the synoptic gospels and the use of Mark by the authors of Matthew and Luke that we are fortunate enough to have what is likely a first-century witness to the text of Mark -- far earlier than we could possibly dream of in terms of external manuscript evidence. The evidence provided by the first and third gospels indicates that our current canonical gospel of Mark in the NT is a revision of an earlier version that lay before the other evangelists.

    Earnest....I go into both issues in my thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/92014/1.ashx

    Whether Romans 16:7 reads Junia or Junias is not based on textual alteration. The Greek word is Jounian and could refer either (1) to a man with the name 'Junianus', found here in its contracted form, 'Junias' or (2) to a woman with the name of Junia. This name only appears here in the New Testament and the text alone does not indicate the sex of Paul's "relative". There is a variant reading of Julia but it is only supported by one early Greek papyrus and some versions. In rendering it as Junias the NWT is in agreement with the ASV, NASB, NIV, TEV and NAB bible translations.

    The evidence however is much more in the favor of Iounian being a female name than masculine. Iounia (Junia) is widely attested as a female name in inscriptions and classical texts, whereas Iounias (Junias) is as yet unattested. It thus hardly a 50/50 option in deciding which to chose in translating Greek Iounian. The regular masucline form would have been Iounios in Greek, not Iounias, anyway; moreover, the earliest manuscripts with accents mark the name as feminine, and the earliest text (P46), from c. AD 200, gives the name as Ioulian "Julia" which is also feminine. The theory that the name is a contraction of Iounianos (Iounianos < Iounias, with Iounian as accusative) is possible but again improbable considering the frequent use of Iounia as a female name and the lack of evidence of Iounias as a masculine name. That is to say, if it did exist as a masculine name, it would have been quite rare, and thus when we are confronted with the accusative Iounian in our text, the most probable rendering would be as "Junia". Moreover, the formula Paul uses to greet Junia and Andronicus (e.g. greeting + FEMALE NAME + kai + MALE NAME) would parallel that with Prisca and Aquila in v. 3, and suggest that Junia and Andronicus were a married couple like the more famous Prisca and Aquila.

    The only other textual alteration that comes to mind is 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35 which is the scripture about women keeping silent in the congregations. In his commentary on First Corinthians, Gordon Fee argues that it is an interpolation as several manuscripts, chiefly Western, transpose verses 34-35 to follow verse 40. However, there is not much support for his theory. You may wish to read the discussion at section 4.2 of this article.

    The dislocation in the Western manuscripts does make the passage read much better, but this is probably an improvement made later on than a witness to v. 34-35 as a floating text. Also, if this is an interpolation it has to be an early one because it is attested in the late first century in 1 Clement 21:6-7 (c. AD 95). This is not to say that it cannot be an interpolation; the version of the text distributed in the early seven-letter corpus Paulinum probably did include a few minor additions (to address contemporary issues), and the text in question is problematic in several different ways in its current context. A better explanation may well be the one advanced by Odell-Scott which treats the passage as an unattributed allusion to the Corinthian letter that Paul was replying to, as best indicated by the particle H (eta) that starts v. 36, which may function as a disjunctive adversative indicating Paul's disagreement with the view expressed in v. 33-35.

  • TheListener
    TheListener

    Leolaia said

    The evidence however is much more in the favor of Iounian being a female name than masculine. Iounia (Junia) is widely attested as a female name in inscriptions and classical texts, whereas Iounias (Junias) is as yet unattested. It thus hardly a 50/50 option in deciding which to chose in translating Greek Iounian. The regular masucline form would have been Iounios in Greek, not Iounias, anyway; moreover, the earliest manuscripts with accents mark the name as feminine, and the earliest text (P46), from c. AD 200, gives the name as Ioulian "Julia" which is also feminine. The theory that the name is a contraction of Iounianos (Iounianos < Iounias, with Iounian as accusative) is possible but again improbable considering the frequent use of Iounia as a female name and the lack of evidence of Iounias as a masculine name. That is to say, if it did exist as a masculine name, it would have been quite rare, and thus when we are confronted with the accusative Iounian in our text, the most probable rendering would be as "Junia". Moreover, the formula Paul uses to greet Junia and Andronicus (e.g. greeting + FEMALE NAME + kai + MALE NAME) would parallel that with Prisca and Aquila in v. 3, and suggest that Junia and Andronicus were a married couple like the more famous Prisca and Aquila.

    Wow!! I find this very very interesting. The role of women in the congregation bothers me. I would love to do some research into this when I've finished the Tyre and Egypt stuff.

    Thanks for posting this.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit