Examples of Textual Variants

[Zakuska]

Few arguments gets more air time than the argument of Faith vs Works. Im sure we can all agree that this could be considered a Core doctrine and is pretty important. Bible innerrantist claim that "No Core doctrine is effected by variant texts".

So we read this verse in the KJV and it reads like this.

Romans 11

6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Then we read the same verse in our NIV and it read like this...

Romans 11:6 NIV

6And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.[a]

Theres a BUNCH of text cut out!

Lets look at the foot note.

a. Romans 11:6 Some manuscripts by grace. But if by works, then it is no longer grace; if it were, work would no longer be work.

How can this BE?! We got our selfs a variant reading!? and on a verse that effects a CORE Doctrine!

The question is what type of variant text is this? Which represents the original text? Are the scribes more likely to have added these 18 words or taken them away?

[Vance]

I suspect the newer "Christian" (read evangelical) translations have biased the translation as much as possible to read favorably toward their theology.

Take "god breathed" for example, it certainly gives it the "inerrant" flavor as opposed to "God inspired" which leaves open the possiblity of fallibility.

[Maya]

I suspect the newer "Christian" (read evangelical) translations have biased the translation as much as possible to read favorably toward their theology.

Take "god breathed" for example, it certainly gives it the "inerrant" flavor as opposed to "God inspired" which leaves open the possiblity of fallibility.

I agree. In the new Finnish taranslation there was something alike that in my old Bible ment completely different than in te new one.... might have been this same thing. Watch out for the translations... it will be more and more difficult to find the real truth in the Bible soon!

[Scottie]

Wouldn't it be nice if God saw how much confusion ancient texts caused mankind and decided to clarify himself?? After all, isn't God supposed to be a God of order? It sure seems like He delights in confusing man.

[Flyonthewall]

Wouldn't it be nice if God saw how much confusion ancient texts caused mankind and decided to clarify himself?? After all, isn't God supposed to be a God of order? It sure seems like He delights in confusing man.

Prophets. They are nice to have to clear up confusion...

[Scottie]

Prophets. They are nice to have to clear up confusion...

Can we expect that sometime soon?

[Mordecai]

Wouldn't it be nice if God saw how much confusion ancient texts caused mankind and decided to clarify himself?? After all, isn't God supposed to be a God of order? It sure seems like He delights in confusing man.

It seems to me, the scriptures push us in the right direction, as do prophets. In the end, language is flawed. There is no perfect translation. It's impossible. The answer is meditation and inspiration built on the scriptures and the words of the prophets. I don't mind that at all, seeing as language, to me, is rather challenging in itself. Meditation and inspiration have potential to be perfect. Words never will, unless we had a perfect language with perfect people.

[John T]

Without my appearing too pedantic, please permit this to help. It is a list of many DIFFERENT translations of Romans 11:6 in many different languages. And if anyone really wants to discuss textural criticism, it should be done with a knowledge of how the text of the NT was transmitted, and with a knowledge of Koine Greek.

Suffice it to say that Zakuska's claim, "No Core doctrine is effected by variant texts" remains accurate, and that there is no contradiction. The short answer for this is called perspicuity, meaning by comparing Scripture with Scripture, it is possible to tell if any variant is indeed a bogus variant, stating something contrary with the main body of Scripture.

6 But if by grace, no longer of works: since otherwise grace is no more grace.

DARBY

6 But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.

ASV

6 But if it is by grace (His unmerited favor and graciousness), it is no longer conditioned on works or anything men have done. Otherwise, grace would no longer be grace [it would be meaningless].

Amplified New Testament

6 si autem gratia non ex operibus alioquin gratia iam non est gratia

VUL

6 ?? ?? ??????, ?????? ?? ?????

[Vance]

For the scholars, the critical apparatus in NA27 (in bold) has a rating of A for that verse. For non scholars, this means that ALL the best and most important and the newest findings from mss, codexes, etc support the position that the words there are 99.99% the exact words that Paul used. If you know statistics, that is a very significant degree of accuracy.

Bottom line is that I just disproved the OP.

You haven't "disproved" any thing. Statistics are very interesting but really aren't proof but rather probabilities.

The probability IS very high that the words in "NA27" are the words that Paul used, and that is interesting, BUT, that doesn't tell us ANYTHING about the additional words that are the main topic of this OP.

AND you failed to address the question "Are the scribes more likely to have added these 18 words or taken them away?"

". . . that it is a mere gloss of an enthusiastic scribe, who added to the verse, the logical conclusion, that once he realized that sallvation was all of grace, he added a part." Is still a bald assertion.

PS. If one will add the phrase "of the law of Moses" after the word "works" in this verse one will get a better understanding of what Paul was really trying to get across.

[John T]

You haven't "disproved" any thing. Statistics are very interesting but really aren't proof but rather probabilities.

The probability IS very high that the words in "NA27" are the words that Paul used, and that is interesting, BUT, that doesn't tell us ANYTHING about the additional words that are the main topic of this OP.

AND you failed to address the question "Are the scribes more likely to have added these 18 words or taken them away?"

". . . that it is a mere gloss of an enthusiastic scribe, who added to the verse, the logical conclusion, that once he realized that salvation was all of grace, he added a part." Is still a bald assertion.

PS. If one will add the phrase "of the law of Moses" after the word "works" in this verse one will get a better understanding of what Paul was really trying to get across.

<sigh>

How did I just KNOW that a reasoned response would be countered by an irrational reply?

As far as the PS is concerned, it is a hapless hypothetical. It is NOT there so why introduce it?

As to the adding to, or taking away, look at the MANY versions I posted. The preponderance is the short version, not the longest. As to your reasoning behind that, you need to supply a reason for that case, as well as a reason why the longer version is not predominating. You also need to identify why the scholars who rated the verse in the NA27 are wrong. Until you do that, you are merely offering pontificated conjecture instead of facts.

As to the scoffing of the 99.99% figure, you have to supply a valid reason why that .01% is a valid hypothesis, otherwise yours is not substantiated.

Finally, I have exposed you to the major translated versions of the NT text in question. If any of them are in error, perhaps you can be an expert in Greek, and write your own version of that text.

Bottom line is that I have supplied documented facts through the various translations, and offered a suggestion that is congruent with all the versions posted.. You have done nothing close.

[Zakuska]

You haven't "disproved" any thing. Statistics are very interesting but really aren't proof but rather probabilities.

The probability IS very high that the words in "NA27" are the words that Paul used, and that is interesting, BUT, that doesn't tell us ANYTHING about the additional words that are the main topic of this OP.

AND you failed to address the question "Are the scribes more likely to have added these 18 words or taken them away?"

". . . that it is a mere gloss of an enthusiastic scribe, who added to the verse, the logical conclusion, that once he realized that sallvation was all of grace, he added a part." Is still a bald assertion.

PS. If one will add the phrase "of the law of Moses" after the word "works" in this verse one will get a better understanding of what Paul was really trying to get across.

Another thing he didn't take into account, and he would have known it if he would have read misquoting Jesus. Just because a Manuscript is older than another manuscript we have, Doesn't necessarily make it a more reliable reading. Because we see variants in those texts as well, and some of those could have only went in the other direction, which would point to a common manuscript now missing that they both were copied from.

[Vance]

<sigh>

How did I just KNOW that a reasoned response would be countered by an irrational reply?

LOL!!! The old "if you don't see it the way I do then you are an idiot" response.

As far as the PS is concerned, it is a hapless hypothetical. It is NOT there so why introduce it?

To help you understand what Paul was really talking about. If he is talking about some other kind of "works" then perhaps you could enlighten us oh ye of the intellectual elite.

As to the adding to, or taking away, look at the MANY versions I posted. The preponderance is the short version, not the longest.

And this is supposed to translate to a probability = zero (or near zero) that they were in the autograph?

As to your reasoning behind that, you need to supply a reason for that case, as well as a reason why the longer version is not predominating.

A reason? You mean you have seen one yet. How about a scribe along the way left it out. Will that do? And predomination many very well affect the results of a statistical calculation, BUT it doesn't REALLY tell us that it was not in the autograph.

You also need to identify why the scholars who rated the verse in the NA27 are wrong.

And you need to pay better attention. I didn't say they were wrong. What I said was that you didn't provide any information about the "extra" words. Clearly the probability that those "extra" words were in the autograph is greater than zero.

Until you do that, you are merely offering pontificated conjecture instead of facts.

I learned it from you.

As to the scoffing of the 99.99% figure, you have to supply a valid reason why that .01% is a valid hypothesis, otherwise yours is not substantiated.

See above about paying attention.

Finally, I have exposed you to the major translated versions of the NT text in question. If any of them are in error, perhaps you can be an expert in Greek, and write your own version of that text.

Nah, I will be content to let you do that. I don't see how that would address the issue of the "extra" words. Do you?

Bottom line is that I have supplied documented facts through the various translations, and offered a suggestion that is congruent with all the versions posted.. You have done nothing close.

Then why are you so upset? Did I somehow rain on your parade?

[cksalmon]

Few arguments gets more air time than the argument of Faith vs Works. Im sure we can all agree that this could be considered a Core doctrine and is pretty important. Bible innerrantist claim that "No Core doctrine is effected by variant texts".

So we read this verse in the KJV and it reads like this.

Romans 11

6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Then we read the same verse in our NIV and it read like this...

Romans 11:6 NIV

6And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.[a]

Theres a BUNCH of text cut out!

Lets look at the foot note.

a. Romans 11:6 Some manuscripts by grace. But if by works, then it is no longer grace; if it were, work would no longer be work.

How can this BE?! We got our selfs a variant reading!? and on a verse that effects a CORE Doctrine!

The variant does not at all alter the thrust or meaning of the shorter reading, Zak. If you believe that it does, you'd need to show in what sense.

The question is what type of variant text is this?

It's a scribal interpolation. A gloss. (And not a particularly helpful one at that, per Comfort.)

Which represents the original text?

To a high degree of likelihood, the shorter reading.

Are the scribes more likely to have added these 18 words or taken them away?

Well, it's thirteen words, first; not eighteen. And, in this case, the manuscript evidence strongly suggests later addition.

Also, amen to what John T. wrote.

cks

[Zakuska]

The variant does not at all alter the thrust or meaning of the shorter reading, Zak. If you believe that it does, you'd need to show in what sense.

The way the shorter verse reads now it forces the doctrine of Grace. In the Longer version Grace and Works are compared as polar opposites diabolicaly opposed to each other. Yet Paul spends the next 6 chapters showing how it all works together. eg. How works of the law play into Love and are fullfilled in the New Covenant.

The Grace vs. Works debate goes clear back too 400AD in which a group of "Christians" were teaching "Grace Alone". From what I read this group was declared Anathema by the Church fathers. Intrestingly this is just about the time the Bible was being compiled so it is absolutely imparative we know which reading is original to the text, especially since the group who was teaching grace alone would have found the shorter reading a god send.

[cksalmon]

The way the shorter verse reads now it forces the doctrine of Grace. In the Longer version Grace and Works are compared as polar opposites diabolicaly opposed to each other.

No, they are juxtaposed as opposites in the shorter reading. "If by grace...[not] by works."

But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

What part of "But, if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would not longer be grace" are you failing to understand, here, Zak? Help me help you.

The interpolation (here from KJV) states the exact same thing in reverse: "and if of works, it is no more grace...."

Are you seriously suggesting that the shorter reading does not juxtapose grace and works as oppositional modes of seeking righteousness? Explain that to me.

Moreover, the longer reading has a not unvenerable history of defenders. But, I'm aware of none of its defenders arguing as you have: that the longer reading argues for a non-disjunctive reading of Paul on grace and works!

cks

[cksalmon]

The Grace vs. Works debate goes clear back too 400AD in which a group of "Christians" were teaching "Grace Alone". From what I read this group was declared Anathema by the Church fathers. Intrestingly this is just about the time the Bible was being compiled so it is absolutely imparative we know which reading is original to the text, especially since the group who was teaching grace alone would have found the shorter reading a god send.

What did you read? Will you quote the source that led you to this conclusion?

cks

[Zakuska]

J. R. Hoffmann notes that by the 2nd century, there were Christian sects that followed "salvationism" by grace alone, with out works. Earlier, James is amongst the earliest Christian leaders to respond to these types of early movements. But we also know from many examples in the New Testament, & the early to later Christian fathers, that this issue concerning "grace" & "works" was a subject of interest & debate. Jude had written against a group of so-called "Christians, antinomians" who had attempted to encourage sexual transgressions, rejected authority & understood divine grace as sanctioning immorality. (R. Joseph Hoffman, Celsus, On The True Doctrine, p. 14-16; Jude 3-8.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/r_albert_mohler_jr/2007/05/is_mormonism_in_the_mainstream.html

[handys003]

Thanks Zak you air my thoughts exactly. It always also makes me wonder if we could bring back an Ancient Maya to decipher the glyphs would it be the same translation by archaeologists today?

[cksalmon]

J. R. Hoffmann notes that by the 2nd century, there were Christian sects that followed "salvationism" by grace alone, with out works. Earlier, James is amongst the earliest Christian leaders to respond to these types of early movements. But we also know from many examples in the New Testament, & the early to later Christian fathers, that this issue concerning "grace" & "works" was a subject of interest & debate. Jude had written against a group of so-called "Christians, antinomians" who had attempted to encourage sexual transgressions, rejected authority & understood divine grace as sanctioning immorality. (R. Joseph Hoffman, Celsus, On The True Doctrine, p. 14-16; Jude 3-8.

Just so I understand, Zak, your "reading" on the issue basically involves cutting and pasting a comment made by someone else to a Washington Post article by Al Mohler and then presenting that comment here on MADB as if the thoughts were your own, with utterly no attribution--no hint at all that you stole these words from someone else in the meta of a Mohler article? Or, would you like to claim that you actually are that "Justin Martyr" fellow who penned those words?

Frankly, I highly doubt you either own or have ever read Hoffman's book, given that your "response" is merely a blatant plagiarization of someone else's comments about it. Do you? Have you?

I would refer you to your Bob Betts sig line.

cks

[John T]

LOL!!! The old "if you don't see it the way I do then you are an idiot" response.

More illogical reasoning!

I presented facts to support my hypothesis. You present scoffing as an answer. Now who is the one looking foolish?

To help you understand what Paul was really talking about. If he is talking about some other kind of "works" then perhaps you could enlighten us oh ye of the intellectual elite.

Another scoffing answer. Sarcasm is the adolescent substitute for learning. When you have facts, and present them, I may respond to you.

And this is supposed to translate to a probability = zero (or near zero) that they were in the autograph?

Obviously, you have zero understanding of statistics nor of the transmission of the NT documents.

A reason? You mean you have seen one yet. How about a scribe along the way left it out. Will that do? And predomination (sic) many very well affect the results of a statistical calculation, BUT it doesn't REALLY tell us that it was not in the autograph.

Here is another irrational response; it is also poorly phrased. Nevertheless, I supplied you with DATA. If you disagree, then you need to supply a reason why it is wrong AND supply the supporting data, otherwise, you are spewing balderdash, and nothing of substance.

And you need to pay better attention. I didn't say they were wrong. What I said was that you didn't provide any information about the "extra" words. Clearly the probability that those "extra" words were in the autograph is greater than zero.

Please supply the analysis from the manuscripts for that latter statement. Otherwise, you are offering mere opinion.

I learned it from you.

Nice remark, just as I heard in elementary school.

Nah, I will be content to let you do that. I don't see how that would address the issue of the "extra" words. Do you?

Obviously no one knows exactly WHY those were added, but based on the best manuscripts, the shorter version prevails. The rating of that is am A in the critical apparatus. Do you have another critical apparatus, or you merely belching smoke?

Then why are you so upset? Did I somehow rain on your parade?

Nah, I am not upset. Quite nicely, you are hanging yourself on your own petard

=====================================================================================================================

NOTICE While this is not my thread I will entertain discussion of facts in the future. I am more than willing to explore the issue, based on facts, but I do not discuss bloviating or posturing. If someone wishes to discuss the issue, please come forth. If someone does not understand what a critical apparatus is, I will be happy to explain that, also.

Message to Zakusta:

My original post to you was meant to be a clarification to your question, and I devoted a lengthy discussion to fill in some answers that you obviously did not have. the purpose was to demonstrate from commonly used translations what the scholars of the ages have found to be true. I wanted to keep it on a high road, but it is obvcious that some here do not want to have a rational discussion. Frankly, I hoped that my experience here would be better, for the reply I made was supportive of you, and not attacking you, or the post.

However, it appears that some here choose to demonstrate ill manners just because someone does not hold to the same beliefs. Certainly that is not dealing fairly, nor is it being respectful of other humans.

That being said, I do not want to be the issue here, and I certainly do not want to be derailing where you want your thread to go. Therefore, I ask you to restate whatever it is that you wish to discuss, and I promise to do my level best to ignore the yahoos.

[maklelan]

Wouldn't it be nice if God saw how much confusion ancient texts caused mankind and decided to clarify himself??

That's what happened in 1830 when he reestablished his church on the earth. The ancient order of prophets and apostles was restored.

[cksalmon]

That's what happened in 1830 when he reestablished his church on the earth. The ancient order of prophets and apostles was restored.

Hi Daniel--

How do you view the utterly unprecedented textual variant that Joseph Smith promulgated with regard to Heb 7.3 (JST)?

Do you view that as a "clarification?" JST is rather hanging in the wind at that point, don't you think?

cks

[Zakuska]

Just so I understand, Zak, your "reading" on the issue basically involves cutting and pasting a comment made by someone else to a Washington Post article by Al Mohler and then presenting that comment here on MADB as if the thoughts were your own, with utterly no attribution--no hint at all that you stole these words from someone else in the meta of a Mohler article? Or, would you like to claim that you actually are that "Justin Martyr" fellow who penned those words?

Frankly, I highly doubt you either own or have ever read Hoffman's book, given that your "response" is merely a blatant plagiarization of someone else's comments about it. Do you? Have you?

I would refer you to your Bob Betts sig line.

cks

There I fixed it, feel better? You asked if I would quote what I had read and I did. Sorry I missed the atribution.

Im going to have to add that book to my library!

[cksalmon]

There I fixed feel better? You asked if I would quote what I had read and I did. Sorry I missed the atribution.

Im going to have to add that book to my library!

No, I don't feel better, Zak. I asked you to quote what you'd read and you, in response, plagiarized an anonymous comment in the meta of an article.

But, now, oddly, you suggest that you're going to have to add Hoffman's book to your library--which, taken at face value, obviously implies that you haven't read Hoffman's book.

A straightforward question now presents itself: Have you ever held Hoffman's book in your hands and read from it? Yes or no? Please answer.

No, Zak, you didn't "miss" the attribution. Far from it. You plagiarized someone else's words and presented them as your own. One doesn't merely "miss the atribution" when one highlights web text, copies it, and pastes that copied text into a response here on MADB, without attribution, as if the comment were a product of one's own reflection.

Again, I don't believe that you've read Hoffman's book. I don't believe that you even own it.

I do believe that you plagiarized someone else's comments about the book. Do you even know the title of the book in question?

cks

[soren]

How can this BE?! We got our selfs a variant reading!? and on a verse that effects a CORE Doctrine!

You are taking far too simplistic a construction of the other side. If you want to make a meaningful argument, you should examine the most robust thesis that your opponents provide and critique that, rather than an off-the-cuff version. The stronger formulation is this: Those texts in which a variant affects doctrine are either easily resolved by lower criticism or else the doctrine in question can be adequately established by other texts. For example, there is a real debate over whether John 1:18 says "only-begotten son" or "only-begotten God." Clearly a core doctrine is affected here. But in any case, the doctrine does not stand or fall on this verse alone, and indeed, Christ's divine sonship is itself an indication of his divinity, let alone monogenes.

For this reason, finding one variant in a key verse does nothing to advance your case against the Bible unless you show that it is impossible to establish the correct reading and that the total Biblical doctrine would be cast into doubt on the basis of your variant, or some set of variants. If you do not attempt to show these things, then you have not begun to deal seriously with the issue that the vast majority of your threads seem to be about.