At ETS last year, the conveners of the session on inerrancy invited several people to give papers on inerrancy and textual criticism. That included me and my coblogger Dirk Jongkind and Matthew Bennet of Cedarville University. (Dan Wallace was also slated to speak, but unfortunately couldn’t make it at the last minute.) Those papers have now been published in the latest issue of Presbyterion.
In Dirk’s paper, he examines the claim that textual variants don’t affect theology and uses that to discuss the relationship of textual criticism and theology more generally. In my paper, I consider whether a shift to the pursuit of the initial text creates a problem for evangelicals who hold to inerrancy. In Bennett’s very interesting paper, he compares textual criticism of the New Testament to textual criticism of the Qur’an with particular attention to the theological ramifications for Christians and Muslims respectively. (It was certainly news to me to learn about the online Encyclopedia of the [variant] readings of the Qur’an and its 14,000 recorded textual variants.)
You can read all three papers online at our Academia pages:
Peter,
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for these three articles!
I had seen the first one, and read it over, and made two comments at the Facebook group NT Textual Criticism, as follow:-
Dirk Jongkind's paper was not an in-depth, but an illustrative, treatment of the chosen texts; but the treatment of John 01:18 is disappointing. I know that he regrets having retained O MONOGENHC YIOC in THGNT, and that he would adopt MONOGENHC ThEOC in a revised edition. But, we await, to be published next year, the THGNT textual commentary.
Not to re-invent the wheel, but....To my mind, again using the razor that Occam lent me, the following is the simplest and most rational explanation. [I am typing on a machine where I don't know how to access Greek font.] O MONOGENHC YIOC ] was contracted to O MONOGENHC YC; which was misread as [an actual early reading often overlooked or confused in scholarly discussions] O MONOGENHC OC [with dot or bar in O of OC]; which--- as the phrase might be taken to exclude A. N. Other -ie, the Father --- was "rectified" by the dropping of the definite article O; so that there emerged MONOGENHC OEOC. Nota bene : there appears to be no attested MONOGENHC YIOC, which surely there must have been in the chain demanded by the critical reasoning - MONOGENHC OEOC > MONOGENHC OC > MONOGENHC YC > MONOGENHC YIOC > O MONOGENHC YIOC.
While I'm not dogmatic about it -- and I don't think there is room for dogmatism with respect to this text, despite the frequency with which I've encountered it -- I agree with Margaret Davies that originally μονογενὴς stood alone, and the readings with Θεὸς and υιος emerged as scribes sought to make explicit the noun they assumed was implied.
Delete“There is, however, a third reading in which ‘the only one’ is defined neither as ‘God’ nor as ‘Son’. This reading occurs in one of the Vulgate manuscripts, in the Diatessaron, in Origen, and in the writings of some other Church Fathers. The reason why it is not printed as the original reading in the Aland critical edition is because the other readings are more widely attested in the manuscript tradition. But the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel became an important resource for theologians engaged in christological disputes in the early centuries of the Common Era and the temptation to bolster certain interpretations by making them explicit in the Prologue was sometimes overwhelming. The three readings of the phrase in 1.18 evidence the verse’s importance in these disputes. The shorter reading, without either ‘God’ and ‘Son,’ has the best claim to be regarded as the original reading for two reasons. First, it explains the variation between ‘God’ and ‘Son’ in the majority of manuscripts as attempts at further definition. It is impossible to explain why either ‘God’ or ‘Son’ was dropped from the text by Origen or others if either was original. Secondly, it makes better sense in the Johannine context, picking up the earlier reference to ‘the only one with the father’ from 1.14. Nowhere else in the Gospel is ‘God’ contrasted with ‘Father’, as it would be if the reading ‘the only God’ was accepted. Taking the shorter reading as the original, the final statement of the Prologue, ‘No one has ever seen God; the only one, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made him known’, appropriately sums up the earlier teaching as an introduction to the story of Jesus which follows. No one has ever seen God, but there is a person, the only one, whose life fully instantiates God’s plan for humanity, and in that way makes God known to others. He is in the bosom of the Father, since the story will relate that, after his death, he was resurrected from the dead to ‘ascend’ and live for ever with the Father.” (Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel), pp. 123, 124
Sean,
DeleteI appreciate that neither are you dogmatic and that Margaret Davis means well; but her suggestion must be dismissed. We need to get rid of unattested conjectures, not least when we have attested readings. UBS 5, which purports to give the readings in some depth, has the three major variants that we have already seen; and it has two minor variants. The first is MONOGENHC ‘YIOC ThEOY, witnessed by Old Latin, Irenaeus 1/3 times, Ambrose 1/1 time but “vid.” So not definite : not very persuasive evidence. The second is ‘O MONOGENHC, limited to some Vulgate manuscripts and pseudo-Vigilius : and so also not persuasive. If this last reading were the true reading, it would certainly agree with the MONOGENOYC PARA PATROC of verse 14 and the ‘O MONOGENHC ‘YIOC of verse 18 - witnessing to the fact that John is speaking of a/the SON and not of a/the GOD.
And any reading not having ThEOC would greatly upset the compilers of many a modern version!
DeleteSome twenty five years ago, I began having telephone conversations with Keith Elliott, who very generously would give me of his time and expertise. In 2003 he drew my attention to attention to an article that he had written on John 01:18 for the now-defunct Majority Text Society. Today, after rummaging through my archives, I found a copy! So, I append it, in two parts, as a contribution to our discussion.
DeleteThe Majority Text Society Summer 2003
John 1:18 ‘God’ or ‘Son’ or Stalemate?
By Dr. J. K. Elliott, University of Leeds
Is Jesus described at the end of the Johannine Prologue as ‘God’ or as ‘Son’? This well-known text-critical problem is drawn to many Bible readers’ attention by its being included in the marginal notes to many a modern version. Also, it is thoroughly debated in learned commentaries. The textual evidence is clearly set out in modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament. The apparatus does not need repeating in extenso here, suffice it to say that the issue boils down to whether the original reading was ‘God’ with or without the article as read in our earliest surviving witnesses (P66 P75 Sin B C) or ‘Son’ with the majority of manuscripts. The Patristic writers know both readings, and some fathers sometimes use the form with ‘God’ sometimes the form with ‘Son’ when citing this verse in their writings. Note that the reading ‘Son’ is also ancient, being known to Irenaeus, Tertullian and Cyprian, and is behind the Latin and Syriac versions. The reading ‘God’ at John 1:18 is especially interesting because it is found virtually exclusively in the Alexandrian tradition. We are not dealing, as we sometimes are, with “Maj.” versus the rest; here it is “Alex.” alone against other readings.
Metzger’s Textual Commentary, that first port of call for many scholars to help them resolve textual cruces, shows here that although the majority of its editors favoured ‘God’ one signed a dissentient comment in favour of ‘Son’. Members of the Majority Text Society presumably support ‘Son’ here, read as it is by the bulk of the Byzantine witnesses and thus follow a reading known to and used by a large swathe of Christian tradition, especially now by Orthodox communities.
The internal arguments are well rehearsed. ‘Son’, we are told by commentators, seems to be required by the following clause and that it fits Johannine style (Jn 3:16, 18 and cf. 1 Jn 4:9). But that may make it the ‘easier’ i.e. the secondary reading introduced by scribes. ‘God’ is certainly the harder reading and one may understand why in certain quarters at certain times readers objected to Jesus being described as the only-begotten God, especially as this uniqueness seems to be contradicted in the context. But the author of the Fourth Gospel may have deliberately returned to ‘God’ at the end of his Prologue to balance the introductory line where the Logos is described as God, and is identified in v. 14 as the begotten Son.
DeleteOn the other hand it may have been that some scribes, reflecting the theological concerns of their communities and determined to enhance Jesus’ status, altered an original ‘Son’ (with all the subordinationist baggage that title carries) to ‘God’, thereby affirming his divinity and deity.
Two minor points are often raised but may be summarily dismissed. One states that stylistically conscious scribes may have bridled at a text that repeated ‘God’ in the sentence and thus altered the second occurrence. Another minor comment refers to the ease with which careless scribes could have misread the abbreviated form of ‘God’ as ‘Son’ or vice versa. Arguments having recourse to the claim of carelessness do not help us here, especially as in this case the change could have been made in either direction. Carelessness and change encouraged by stylistic considerations are unlikely to have played a part in what is an obvious and theologically sensitive sentence.
If we cannot resolve the variant using internal or external criteria what is to be done?
Theologians traditionally expect textual critics to pronounce categorically on the originality and secondariness of every variant in the New Testament. That expectation is unrealistic and unachievable. Several readings seem impervious to satisfactory resolution, whatever one’s methodological proclivities. In any case it may perhaps be a better function of textual criticism if it alerts readers to the sheer variety of viable options in a text that has had a theologically rich history.
Most theologically sensitive readings reflect early Christological debate and thus bear valuable historical testimony. If the results of textual criticism promote only the supposed original reading, the danger is that the secondary readings are jettisoned as flawed and spurious. We thus forget that all readings were once used as canonical by the owners of each manuscript. The pious who had a manuscript of Mark that ended at 16:8 would consider their text canonical, just as another owner whose manuscript ended at 16:20 would also cherish its text as the canonical word of God.
We may compare that to owners of an English version of the Bible, who will regard its text as representing the canonical scriptures. Those favouring the KJV, for instance, accept its text at Acts 9:5–6; 10:6; Rev. 22:19 (not to mention the Comma Johanneum!) without realising that its eccentricities here are the product of early printed editions’ including bogus readings from the Latin. (Not that the society favouring the text of the majority of manuscripts could ever fall into such traps!)
The dilemma of what to do with apparently unresolvable problem cases has encouraged me to suggest – most recently… that sometimes it may be wisest to print all the viable alternatives, without favouring any one of them as the original.1 To do this at John 1:18 would invite readers to explain both differing meanings of the verse and thereby to appreciate the complex history revealed in the transmission of this gospel. I leave readers to consider this proposal and to assess the logistics of applying such a suggestion. I note that the new Minster series Editio Critica Maior occasionally signals (by means of a bold dot) words that are offered to readers as equally acceptable alternative readings.
I appreciate that many people feel very strongly about which reading is correct. Ironically, I would prefer to believe that the reading with QEOS is original, because that would be strong support for my theology, but the fact that I'd like that reading to be true can't be the reason for my preference. I have to take all factors into consideration, and I think that Margaret Davies' explanation is the most plausible one that I've heard for the emergence of the variants. It's ok with me that you don't agree.
DeleteSean,
DeleteNot only are you a gentleman but also an honest man who refuses to let his doctrinal preference ignore a textual reading that might conflict with that preference. Ō sīc sī omnēs essent!
I addressed the question of "Do Any Textual Variants Even Impact Major Doctrines?" at https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2022/06/do-any-textual-variants-impact-doctrine.html and my answer is "Yes."
ReplyDeleteJames,
DeleteGood article! I just think that Evangelicalism is all over the place with doctrines of “inerrancy” etc.. I dare say that “the holy writings”, mentioned by Paul to Timothy at 2 Timothy 03:15, were documents copied in the normal way and held to be decent/trustworthy enough for their purpose.
Interesting article, thanks for sharing the link. I long in vain for the day when text-critical possibilities can be discussed without so often being attended by the obsession with traditional doctrines.
DeleteAdmin. I have made several short comments for older items, but they've not yet appeared! Please help! Thanks!
ReplyDeleteWe get a lot of spam these days so approval may take longer. Also it’s summer and I’m busier than I used to be :)
DeleteThanks for replying! I completely understand! I’ve just heard from two other sites that they also are experiencing increased spam!
DeleteIs it because Protestants have no traditions (at least in their minds) that they have to reinvent the wheel each year with a new crop of students? Protestants are connected to other Christians who have gone before us; Western and Eastern Catholics cannot claim them exclusively.
ReplyDeleteTextual Criticism was practiced and hammered out in the first few centuries by those who spoke Koine natively. I'm going to listen to them instead of innovations not proven. For instance Jn. 1.18 was the foundation in their developing, or, recognizing the eternal generation of the Son.
Jn. 1.18 helps explain Jn. 5.26 and 1Cor. 8.6 but that shouldn't solely determine acceptance. In 1Cor. 8.6 we see the term "unbegotten" needs to be supplied when speaking of God the Father. As in God's self-existence and sustaining everything He is eternally generating the Son with the Spirit proceeding from Him also eternally. If at any point is is not doing that then He would be mutable, and, that He is not.
A standard seminary course is really useful since it combines languages, theology, and historical studies of doctrines and lives. Over-specialization may produce a myopic perspective by forgetting those who wrested with these issues previously. The call to examine theology along with textual studies is inherent in seminary; or it should be. By nature of a comprehensive program the novice is exposed to native text, the resultant theology, and a history of other Christians interacting with it.
Also, the book of Hebrews, by its composition and inclusion, implicitly instructs the follower to reference the Old Covenant to understand the figures now fulfilled in Christ. God has been calling Christians to do that whether they recognize it or not.
John 01:18, expanding on John 01:14, tells me that there is a Father and that there is a Son - information clear and unambiguous and showing two P/persons. From this information, I deduce that, as a son derives existence etc. from his father, so the Son derives existence etc. from his/the Father. John 05:26 tells me that the Son, one person, does not have life in himself but that it is the Father, one Person, who has given him life - either in himself and/or to give it to others. 1Corinthians 08:06 tells me that there is one God - one Person - and that there is one Lord - one person : every g/God is a l/Lord, but not every l/Lord is a g/God. The Greek is as unambiguous as the English; and it takes extraneous “philosophical” hermeneutics to derive anything but the plain meaning. I find such compounds as “μονογενης” and “αρτιγεννητος” in my Greek New Testament, and I find the simple “αγενής’; but I do not find “αγένητος”, “αγέννητος”, etc. which have to be imported.
DeletePS And I don't find "monogennEtos".
DeleteSorry - the above Anonymous is Alexander Thomson!
Delete