APPENDIX H
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT
MAKE?
Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM
PhD
It has been commonly argued, for at least
200 years,[1] that no matter what Greek text one may
use no doctrine will be affected. In my own experience, for over thirty years,
when I have raised the question of what is the correct Greek text of the New
Testament, regardless of the audience, the usual response has been: "What
difference does it make?" The purpose of this article is to answer that
question, at least in part.
The eclectic Greek text presently in
vogue, UBS3/N-A26, represents the type of text upon which
most modern versions are based.[2] The KJV and NKJV follow a rather
different type of text, a close cousin of the Majority Text.[3] The discrepancy between UBS3 and the Majority Text is around 8%
(involving 8% of the words). In a Greek text with 600 pages that represents 48
solid pages' worth of discrepancies!
About a fifth of that reflects omissions in the eclectic text, so it is
some ten pages shorter than the Majority Text.
Even if we grant, for the sake of the argument, that up to half of the
differences between the Majority and eclectic texts could be termed
"inconsequential", that leaves some 25 pages' worth of differences
that are significant (in varying degrees). In spite of these differences it is
usually assumed that no cardinal Christian doctrine is at risk (though some,
such as eternal judgment, the ascension and the deity of Jesus, are weakened). However, the
most basic one of all, the divine inspiration of the text, is indeed under
attack.
The eclectic text incorporates errors of
fact and contradictions such that any claim that the New Testament is divinely
inspired becomes relative, and the doctrine of inerrancy becomes virtually
untenable. If the authority of the New
Testament is undermined, all its teachings are likewise affected. For over a
century the credibility of the New Testament text has been eroded, and this
credibility crisis has been forced upon the attention of the laity by the
modern versions that enclose parts of the text in brackets and have numerous
footnotes of a sort that raise doubts about the integrity of the Text.
The consequences of all this are serious
and far-reaching for the future of the Church. It seems unreasonable that individuals
and organizations that profess to champion a high view of Scripture, that
defend verbal plenary inspiration and the inerrancy of the Autographs, should
embrace a Greek text that effectively undermines their belief.[4] Since their sincerity is evident, one
must conclude that they are uninformed, or have not really looked at the
evidence and thought through the implications. So I will now set out some of
that evidence and discuss the implications. I wish to emphasize that I am not
impugning the personal sincerity or orthodoxy of those who use the UBS text; I
am challenging the presuppositions that lie behind it and calling attention to
the "proof of the pudding."
In the examples that follow, the reading
of the Majority Text is always given first and that of UBS3 second, followed by any others. (Where
UBS3 uses brackets, or some modern version
follows Nestle25, that
will be clearly explained.) Immediately under each variant is a literal
equivalent in English. To each variant is attached a statement of manuscript
and versional support of the sort one can find in the critical apparatus of UBS3, for example. (Many lay persons will not
know how to interpret the statements of support; in that event one should move
on to the discussion—it is worth noting, however, that "Byz" usually represents
over 90% of the extant Greek MSS [known manuscripts]). The set of variants with
their respective supporting evidence is followed by a discussion of the
implications. First I will present errors of fact and contradictions, then
serious anomalies and aberrations.
Luke
4:44 GalilaiaV--A,D,E,G,K,M,U,X,Y,G,D,Q,P,Y,047,0211,+6unc,f13,33,Byz,lat,syrp
[in the
synagogues] of Galilee
IoudaiaV --P75vid,À,B,C,L,Qvid,R(W)f1,Lect,syrs,h,cop
[in the
synagogues] of Judea
Problem: Jesus was in Galilee (and
continued there), not in Judea, as the context makes clear.
Discussion: In the parallel passage,
Mark 1:35-39, all texts agree that Jesus was in Galilee. Thus UBS3 contradicts itself by reading Judea in
Luke 4:44. Bruce Metzger makes clear that the UBS editors did this on purpose
when he explains that their reading "is obviously the more difficult, and
copyists have corrected it . . . in accord with the
parallels in Mt 4.23 and Mk 1.39."[5] Thus the UBS editors introduce a
contradiction into their text which is also an error of fact. This error in the
eclectic text is reproduced by LB, NIV, NASB, NEB, RSV, etc. NRSV adds insult
to injury: "So he continued proclaiming the message in the synagogues of
Judea."
Luke 23:45 eskotisqh --A,Cc,D,E,G,K,M,Q,R,U,V,W,X,Y,G,D,Q,P,Y, 0117,0135,+5unc,f1,13,Byz
[the sun] was
darkened Lect,lat,syr,Diat
eklipontoV--P75,À(B,Cvid)L,0124(cop)[6]
[the sun] being eclipsed
Problem: An eclipse of the sun is
impossible during a full moon. Jesus was crucified during the Passover, and the
Passover is always at full moon (which is why the date for Easter moves
around). UBS introduces a scientific error.
Discussion: The Greek verb ekleipw is
quite common and has the basic meaning "to fail" or "to
end", but when used of the sun or the moon it refers to an eclipse
("eclipse" comes from that Greek root). Indeed, such versions as
Moffatt, Twentieth Century, Authentic, Phillips, NEB, New Berkeley, NAB and
Jerusalem overtly state that the sun was eclipsed. While versions such as NASB,
TEV and NIV avoid the word "eclipse", the normal meaning of the
eclectic text that they follow is precisely "the sun being eclipsed."[7]
Mark 6:22 authV thV HrwdiadoV--A,C,E,G,H,K,M,N,S,U,V(W,Q)Y,G,P,å,F,W,f(1)13,33,Byz,Lect,
[the daughter]
herself of Herodias
lat(syr,cop,Diat)
autou - - HrwdiadoV--À,B,D,L,D
his [daughter]
Herodias
Problem: UBS in Mark 6:22 contradicts
UBS in Matthew 14:6.
Discussion: Matthew 14:6 states that
the girl was the daughter of Herodias (Herodias had been the wife of Philip,
King Herod's brother, but was now living with Herod). Here UBS makes the girl
out to be Herod's own daughter, and calls her "Herodias".
Metzger defends the choice of the UBS Committee with these words: "It is
very difficult to decide which reading is the least unsatisfactory" (p.
89)! (Do the UBS editors consider that the original reading is lost? If not it
must be "unsatisfactory", but are those editors really competent to
make such a judgment? And just what might be so “unsatisfactory” about the
reading of over 99% of the MSS? I suppose because it creates no problem.) The
modern versions that usually identify with UBS part company with it here,
except for NRSV that reads, "his daughter Herodias."
1 Corinthians 5:1 onomazetai--P68,Àc,Y,Byz,syr
is named
--- --P46,À*,A,B,C,D,F,G,33,lat,cop
Problem: It was reported that a man
had his father's wife, a type of fornication such that not even the Gentiles
talked about it. However, the UBS text affirms that this type of incest does
not even exist among the Gentiles, a plain falsehood. Every conceivable type of
sexual perversion has existed throughout human history.
Discussion: Strangely, such
evangelical versions as NIV, NASB, Berkeley and LB propagate this error. I find
it interesting that versions such as TEV, NEB and Jerusalem, while following
the same text, avoid a categorical statement.[8]
Luke 3:33 tou Aminadab,
tou Aram--A,E,G,K,N,D,P,Y,047,0211(D,Q)+7unc(f¹)33,Byz,
of Aminadab of Aram Lect,lat,syrp,h
tou Aminadab, tou Admin,
tou Arni --none!!
of Aminadab of Admin
of Arni
tou Admein, tou Arnei--B
tou Adam, -- -- tou
Arni?--syrs
tou Adam, tou Admin, tou Arnei--À*
tou Adam, tou Admein, tou Arnei--copsa
tou Admein, tou
Admin, tou Arni --copbo
tou Aminadab,
tou Admin, tou Arnei--Àc
tou Aminadab, tou Admin, tou Arhi --f13
tou Aminadab, tou Admh, tou
Arni --X
tou Aminadab, tou Admein, tou Arni --L
tou Aminadab,
tou Admein, tou Aram--0102(P4?)
Problem: The fictitious Admin and
Arni are intruded into Christ's genealogy.
Discussion: UBS has misrepresented
the evidence in their apparatus so as to hide the fact that no Greek MS has the
precise text they have printed, a veritable "patchwork quilt". In
Metzger's presentation of the UBS Committee's reasoning in this case he writes,
"the Committee adopted what seems to be the least unsatisfactory form of
text" (p. 136). Is this not a good candidate for "chutzpah" of
the year? The UBS editors concoct their own reading and proclaim it "the
least unsatisfactory"! And just what might be "unsatisfactory"
about the reading of over 99% of the MSS except that it doesn't introduce any
difficulties?
There is complete confusion
in the Egyptian camp. That confusion must have commenced in the second century,
resulting from several easy transcriptional errors, simple copying
mistakes. APAM to APNI is
very easy (in the early centuries only upper case letters were used); with a
scratchy quill the cross strokes in the A and M could be light,
and a subsequent copyist could mistake the left leg of the M as going
with the L to make N, and the right leg of the M
would become I. Very early “Aminadab” was misspelled as “Aminadam”,
which survives in some 25% of the extant MSS. The "Adam" of Aleph,
syrs and copsa arose through an easy instance of homoioarcton (the
eye of a copyist went from the first A in "Aminadam" to the
second, dropping "Amin-" and leaving "Adam"). A
and D are easily confused, especially when written
by hand—"Admin" presumably came from “AMINadab/m”, though the process
was more complicated. The "i" of "Admin" and
"Arni" is corrupted to "ei" in Codex B (a frequent
occurrence in that MS—perhaps due to Coptic influence). Codex Aleph conflated
the ancestor that produced "Adam" with the one that produced
"Admin", etc. The total confusion in Egypt does not surprise us, but
how shall we account for the text and apparatus of UBS3 in this instance? And whatever possessed
the editors of NASB, NRSV, TEV, LB, Berkeley, etc. to embrace such an egregious
error?[9]
Matthew 19:17 Ti me legeiV
agaqon; oudeiV agaqoV ei mh eiV, o qeoV--C,E,F,G,H,K,M,S,U,V,W,Y,D,å,F,W,
Why do you call me good? No one is
good but one, God.
f13,33,Byz,Lect,syrp,h,copsa,Diat
Ti me erwtaV peri tou agaqou; eiV estin o agaqoV --À,L,Q(B,D,f1,syrs)
Why do you ask me about the good? One is
good.
Ti me erwtaV peri tou agaqou; eiV estin o agaqoV, o qeoV--lat,syrc,copbo
Problem: UBS in Matthew 19:17
contradicts UBS in Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19 (wherein all texts agree with the
Byzantine here).
Discussion: Presumably Jesus spoke in
Aramaic, but there is no way that whatever He said could legitimately yield the
two translations into Greek given above.[10] That the Latin versions offer a
conflation suggests that both the other variants must have existed in the
second century—indeed, the Diatessaron overtly places the Byzantine reading in
the first half of that century. The Church in Egypt during the second century
was dominated by Gnosticism. That such a "nice" gnostic variant came
into being is no surprise, but why do modern editors embrace it? Because it is
the "more obscure one" (Metzger, p. 49). This "obscurity"
was so attractive to the UBS Committee that they printed another
"patchwork quilt"—taking the young man's question and this first part
of the Lord's answer together, the precise text of UBS3 is found only in the corrector of
Codex B; further, with reference to the main Greek MSS given as supporting the
eclectic text here (À,B,D,L,Q,f1), the fact is that no two of them precisely agree!
(Should they be regarded as reliable witnesses? On what basis?) Most modern versions
join UBS in this error also.
Acts 19:16 autwn --H,L,P,S(Y)Byz,syrs
them
amfoterwn--P74,À,A,B,D,33,syrp,cop
both of them
Problem: The sons of Sceva were
seven, not two.
Discussion: To argue that
"both" can mean "all" on the basis of this passage is to
beg the question. An appeal to Acts
23:8 is likewise unconvincing. "For Sadducees say that there is no
resurrection—and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both."
"Angel" and "spirit" if not intended as synonyms at least
belong to a single class, spirit beings. The Pharisees believed in
"both"—resurrection and spirit beings. There is no basis here for
claiming that "both" can legitimately refer to seven (Acts 19:16).[11] Still, most modern versions do render
"both" as "all". NASB actually renders "both of
them," making the contradiction overt!
Matthew 1:7-8 Asa
--E,K,L,M,S,U,V,W,G,D,P,å,W,33,Byz,Lect,latpt,syr
Asa
Asaf--À,B,C,f1,13,latpt,cop
Asaph
Problem: Asaph does not belong in
Jesus' genealogy.
Discussion: Asaph was a Levite, not
of the tribe of Judah; he was a psalmist, not a king. It is clear from
Metzger's comments that the UBS editors understand that their reading refers to
the Levite and should not be construed as an alternate spelling of Asa; he
overtly calls Asaph an "error" (p. 1). In fact, "Asaph" is probably not a misspelling of
"Asa". Not counting Asa and
Amon (see v. 10) Codex B misspells 13 names in this chapter, while Codex Aleph
misspells 10, which undermines their credibility. However, their misspellings
involve dittography, gender change, or a similar sound (z for s, d
for t, m for n)—not adding an extraneous consonant, like f,
nor trading dissimilar sounds, like s for n.
In response to Lagrange, who
considered "Asaph" to be an ancient scribal error, Metzger writes:
"Since, however, the evangelist may have derived material for the
genealogy, not from the Old Testament directly, but from subsequent genealogical
lists, in which the erroneous spelling occurred, the Committee saw no reason to
adopt what appears to be a scribal emendation" (p. 1). Metzger frankly declares that the spelling
they have adopted is "erroneous". The UBS editors have deliberately
imported an error into their text, which is faithfully reproduced by NAB (New
American Bible) and NRSV. RSV and NASB offer a footnote to the effect that the
Greek reads "Asaph"—it would be less misleading if they said that a
tiny fraction of the Greek MSS so read. The case of Amon vs. Amos in verse 10
is analogous to this one. Metzger says that "Amos" is "an error
for 'Amon'" (p. 2), and the UBS editors have duly placed the error in
their text.
Matthew 10:10 mhde rabdouV--C,E,F,G,K,L,M,N,P,S,U,V,W,Y,G,D,P,å,F,W,f13,Byz,syrh,copbo neither staffs
mhde rabdon --À,B,D,Q,f1,33,lat,syrp,copsa neither a staff
Problem: In both Matthew 10:10 and Luke
9:3 UBS has "neither a staff," thus contradicting Mark 6:8 where all
texts have "only a staff."
Discussion: In Luke and Matthew the
Byzantine text reads "neither staffs", which does not contradict
Mark—the case of the staffs is analogous to that of the tunics; they were to
take only one, not several. A superficial reader would probably expect the
singular; that some scribe in Egypt should have trouble with "staffs"
and simplify it to "a staff" comes as no surprise, but why do the UBS
editors import this error into their text? Almost all modern versions follow
UBS both here and in Luke 9:3.
Mark 1:2 en toiV profhtaiV --A,E,F,H,K,M,P,S,U,V,W,Y,G,P,å,F,W, f13,Byz,Lect,syrh [as it is written] in the prophets
en tw Isaia tw profhth--À,B,L,D,33(D,Q,f1)lat,syrp,pal,cop [as it is written] in Isaiah the prophet
Problem: The UBS text ascribes extraneous
material to Isaiah.
Discussion: The rest of verse 2 is a quote
from Malachi 3:1 while verse 3 is from Isaiah 40:3. Once again Metzger uses the
"harder reading" argument, in effect (p. 73), but the eclectic choice
is most probably the result of early harmonizing activity.[12] Almost all modern versions agree with UBS
here.
Luke 9:10 eiV topon erhmon polewV kaloumenhV Bhqsaida(n)--(A)C,E,G,K,M,U,Y,W,G,D,P,047,0211, into a deserted place belonging to a town called Bethsaida f(1)13,Byz,syr(p)h
eiV polin kaloumenhn Bhqsaida --(P75)B,L,X,X,33 (syrs)cop into a town called Bethsaida
eiV topon erhmon --À,syrc,bomss into a deserted place
Problem: UBS has Jesus and company going into Bethsaida, but in v. 12 the disciples say they are in a deserted area; thus a contradiction is introduced. UBS here is also at variance with UBS in the parallel passages.
Discussion: In Matthew 14:13 all texts have Jesus going to a deserted place, and in v. 15 the disciples say, "the place is deserted . . . send the crowd away to the towns." In Mark 6:31-32 all texts have Him going to a deserted place, and in v. 35 the disciples say it is a deserted place, etc. So UBS not only makes Luke contradict himself, but sets him against Matthew and Mark. The modern versions do not surprise us.
I pause to register a case where the chief "Alexandrian" witnesses introduce a contradiction that the "critical" texts have not adopted, thankfully, although Westcott and Hort included it in double brackets in their text. This gives a further illustration of the tendency of those MSS.
Matthew 27:49 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --A,D,K,W, D,Q,P,090,f1,13,33,Byz,Lect,lat,syr,cop,Diat
alloV de labwn logchn enuxen autou thn pleuran, kai exhlqen udwr kai aima--À,B,C, but another tak