Fr. Dr. Thomas Manjaly
Professor emeritus of New Testament Studies
Oriens Theological College, Shillong
Introduction
[dropcap]R[/dropcap]ecently, I came across two write ups in Nagaland Post: “Is you NIV/RSV Bible missing some verses?” by Rev. Johnson John, Pastor, United Mission Church, Dimapur (12 July 2014), and a response to the same by Dr. Sanyu Iralu & Dr. James Kalong, both teaching New Testament at Shalom Bible Seminary and Oriental Theological Seminary respectively (20 July 2014). I appreciate the Rev. Johnson James for his interest in King James Version (KJV) and his concern for the ‘missing verses’ in New International Version (NIV) and Revised Standard Version (RSV). This can definitely draw the attention of those interested in the Bible as the written Word of God, particularly those involved in translating the Bible into the indigenous languages of Northeast India, to some important aspects of the authenticity of the text (many still use an English version as the basis text) and issues connected with Textual Criticism. The latter aspect is seldom taken care of by many of the translators. It is here that ‘the response’ to the article, ‘Is your NIV/RSV Bible missing some verses?’ becomes very useful.I would like to congratulate the authors of the response for presenting some of the most important aspects of ‘Textual Criticism’ in a way that those who are not well acquainted or even initiated into the science and art of ‘Textual Criticism’ can find very useful insights. The response has not only highlighted the rationale and the history of translation of NIV and RSV, but also has introduced the readers of Nagaland Post, and all those who are interested in a more serious study and use of the Bible to the world of Textual Criticism – the Manuscript sources, types according to their origin and the process of their transmission. This they have done in a very limited space with precision, clarity and accuracy.
Critical Editions of the New Testament
All those who are engaged in serious Bible study and Bible translation will do well to have access to the monumental work of Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London / New York: United Bible Societies, 1975). This is a companion / supplementary volume of the Greek New Testament (3rd edition; United Bible Societies). Anyone who is familiar with ‘Critical Apparatus’ provided in the Greek New Testament (e.g. Novum Testamentum Graece of Nestle-Aland ) can understand how difficult is the process to come to a final decision regarding one or the other reading, and hence the importance and usefulness of a Textual Commentary. Metzger deals with to over 2044 sets of the more significant variant readings (1444 supplied in the critical apparatus of the UBS edition, and 600 added by Metzger) in the Greek New Testament. Another very valuable source, The Text of the New Testament, by Bruce M. Metzger (2nd edition; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979) deals at length with “Important Witnesses to the Text of the New Testament” (pp. 36-92), and “Textus Receptus” (pp. 95-118). A careful look at these sections will make it very clear to the readers the quality of the text types / witnesses that lie behind Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus and other ancient manuscripts such as papyri nos. 66 & 75 (p66 & p75), etc. These ancient Manuscripts served as the basis of NIV and RSV and their revised versions. Another work by Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament demonstrate further in detail the quality of the text types used for the 26th and 27th editions of Nestle-Aland and the third and fourth editions of The Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies. The fourth edition of The Greek New Testament (11th Printing; Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 2006) which is also the text of the 27th edition of Nestle-Aland gives an elaborate presentation of the Greek manuscripts, their types and origin, and other sources such as important early versions and the Fathers of the Church (The Greek New Testament, 4th edition, 5* – 38*). These editions serve as the basis text for many of the modern translations. Therefore, while discussing why certain parts or verses are missing in any of the modern language translations, these aspects require serious consideration.
The Importance and Necessity of Textual Criticism
Metzger in his book, The Text of the New Testament (186-206) deals with the causes of error in the transmission of the Text of the New Testament – both unintentional and intentional. It is worth studying in order to understand the laborious process of copying a large volume like the Bible, with minimum facilities and using materials that are not so helpful for easy writing. Errors were possible due to several factors when copies were made by several scribes simultaneously in a Scriptorium where one read out loud the text (dictation) and others wrote down (for example due to faulty hearing). Errors were equally possible even when a single scribe in his own cell copied a manuscript (due to faulty eyesight, confusing similar letters especially in their Uncial form, or wandering from one column to another, when the same word ended two lines, or from one line to another skipping the line in between, etc., or due to errors of the mind such as substitution of synonyms, or transposition of letters, etc.).
If the above-mentioned changes were in a way unintentional, there were also intentional changes. Many of them were introduced by the scribe in good faith because he thought that he was correcting an error (e.g. spelling and grammar). Other intentional changes are harmonization especially following parallel passages (in the same book or another one), addition of natural complements, clarification of difficulties, conflation of readings (especially when the same passage was given differently in two or more manuscripts), or changes due to doctrinal considerations. These factors can be considered seriously only through Textual Criticism making use of a large number of manuscripts of early origin. And this is what the Committees dealing with Greek New Testament, and the NIV and RSV, and other important translations have done.
Over a period of time, those who have been involved in determining a text that is as close as possible have evolved certain principles for the practice of Textual Criticism (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 206-246). The most basic criterion is the maxim ‘choose the reading which best explains the origin of others’. Keeping this maxim in mind, two types of criteria are used: External Evidence and Internal Evidence. The external evidence takes into account the date of the type of witness, not just of the manuscript; the geographical distribution of witnesses (geographically remote ones are more likely to be independent witnesses) that agree in supporting a variant; the genealogical relationship of texts and families – witnesses are to be weighed rather than counted (using many manuscripts of same origin / text type does not much value to textual accuracy.
The internal evidence considers two aspects: transcriptional probabilities and intrinsic probabilities. Under the first category are the following principles: in general the more difficult reading is to be preferred, the one more difficult for the scribe who would be tempted to make an emendation; in general the shorter reading is to be preferred, with some exceptions where due to scribal error the reading is shorter (skipping line or word (s), and other corrections; since there is greater possibility of harmonization of parallel texts, that reading is to be preferred which stands in verbal dissidence with the other.
Intrinsic possibilities depend upon considerations of what the author was more likely to have written, taking into account the style and vocabulary of the author throughout the book; the immediate context; harmony with the usage of the author elsewhere, and, in the Gospels; the Aramaic background of the teaching of Jesus; the priority of the Gospel according to Mark, and the influence of Christian community upon the formulation and transmission of the passage in question.
It is true that not all criteria are applicable in all cases. At times, blind application can be risky as well, for example, when the more difficult reading is attested only in the later manuscripts or longer reading is found only in the earlier witnesses. The danger of being one-sided or getting enamoured of a single method or criterion should be avoided. That is why it is said that Textual criticism is both a science and an art. As a science, one must use the critical principles very judiciously and follow the correct process. But as an art, it cannot simply be taught (how to teach another to become a poet?); one must be able to see beyond what is apparent, and needs to be perfected through a process.
Before proceeding further, we must keep in mind that though there are thousands of manuscripts available to us today, there are basically four predominant types of Texts: The Alexandrian, the Western and the Caesarean, and Koine or Byzantine forms of text. (1). The Alexandrian text was prepared by skilful editors, trained in the scholarly traditions of Alexandria. They relied on an ancient text. The main witnesses are – codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (Uncials), and two papyri (p66 & p75). Most scholars regard the Alexandrian text on the whole as the best ancient recension and one of the most nearly approximating the original. (2) The Western (because spread in the western world of Italy, Gaul etc.) type of text can also be traced to early times (used by Marcion, Tertullian, Irenaeus and Cyprian). Its most important witness is codex Bezae and the Old Latin manuscripts. (3) Caesarean type of text includes codex Koridethi, papyrus 45 (p45). This text probably originated in Egypt, seems to date back to Origen who brought it to Caesarea. In this type one finds a mixture of Western and Alexandrian readings. It is seen as the most mixed and the least homogeneous of all the types. (4) Besides, some refer to the Koine or Byzantine form, which is of later origin. The best witness of this type is codex Alexandrinus which is partly of Byzantine type for the Gospels, and of the Alexandrian type for the rest of the New Testament which ranks along with codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 36, 38-39, 213-217; Metzger, A Textual Commentary, xxviii-xxxi).
In general a NT reading supported by a combination of Alexandrian and Western witnesses is superior, except for Paul. But the combination of Western and Caesarean witnesses does not carry much weight because the caesarean text was probably formed from a base which had Western affiliations (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 218). Mere numerical strength of manuscripts (e.g. text type of the same origin copied in many manuscripts and spread in the same area) need not give weight to the argument over fewer manuscripts of different text types and spread in geographically distant areas. What has been said above can clarify some of the issues raised by Pastor Tepu Khieya of Dimapur (Nagaland Post and Morung Express of 27 July 2014).
To be continued ……………….
