Apologetics: How We Got the Bible, Part 5 (Principles of Textual Criticism)

When manuscripts disagree regarding the reading of a text, how do we decide which is right?

Textual critics often try to lay out certain rules for how we decide, but it’s not an entirely objective process. Rather, it requires thoughtful reading of the history of the text, the translations, and such. Nonetheless, certain principles should be considered every time.

Let’s take some examples before we try to lay out abstract principles. Consider James 5:7b.

(Jam 5:7b KJV) Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain.

A “critical apparatus” — that is, a book comparing all the manuscripts by use of elaborate notations and footnotes, such as the Novum Testamentum Graece: Nestle-Aland (Greek Edition) — shows that several manuscripts omit “rain,” having no object for “early and latter.” This is typical of what a critical apparatus book would tell you about one possible reading:

[no addition] P⁷⁴ B 048 (69) 945 1241 1739 2298 vg^{am,colb,dem,dubl,ful,(harl)} sa arm geo^mss

The word is omitted from the Seventh Century’s Papyrus 74, uncial Codex B (Alexandrian), and several minuscules (the Arabic numbers). “Vg” refers to the Vulgate, and the superscripts refer to particular Vulgate manuscripts. “Sa” refers to the Sahidic (an Egyptian dialect) Second Century translation, and “Geo” refers to the Ninth Century Georgian translation.

This is a pretty impressive list of support, but it seems odd for James to omit the object of “early and latter.” Some would argue that this choice must be rejected because it’s poor grammar, and thus inappropriate for a Spirit-inspired book.

Another group of manuscripts have the word “rain” after “early and latter.”

• add ueton, “rain” A K L P Y 049 056 0142 33 81 88 104 181 322 323 330 (436) 451 614 629 1243 1505 1611 1735 1852 2138 2344 2412 2464 2492 2495 Byz pesh hark^text geo^ms slav

This includes an impressive list of codices, beginning with A (Vaticanus), many minuscules, and the entire Byzantine line of manuscripts (Byz). The Byzantine text has by far the most manuscripts (most after the 10th Century), and so rather than listing perhaps hundreds of texts, reference is made to the family of texts as a whole. The Byzantine text  is often referred to as the Majority Text.

The Peshitta (pesh) is an Aramaic translation, with the earliest manuscripts being from the Fifth Century, but having roots going back perhaps as far as the First Century. The Peshitta shows evidence of having been  edited in light of the Vulgate.

(Hark) refers to a Seventh Century manuscript of the Peshitta. “Slav” refers to the Old Church Slavonic translation.

Well, that’s also a very impressive list of supporting authorities, and “rain” certainly fits the context. Why not go with what makes the most sense?

But there’s yet a third choice to consider. Several manuscripts have “fruit” as the object of “early and latter.”

(*) 398 1175 ff hark^marg (bo) Faustus Cassiodorus

These include Codex Aleph (Sinaiticus), a couple of minuscules, a marginal reading in an Aramaic version, an Old Latin translation (ff), and a Sixth Century translation by Cassiodorus.

Codex Sinaiticus is considered the “neutral” text, that is, closest the originals, but “fruit” doesn’t fit well here and few others have followed this textual variant.

So how do we decide? Most people would argue for “rain” because it fits the context and the prophets often spoke of latter rains (Deut. 11:14; Job 29:23; Prov. 16:15; Jer. 3:3; Joel 2:23; Zech. 10:1). Moreover, it has an excellent set of manuscripts supporting that reading.

“Fruit” appears to be borrowed from the preceding sentence, and it is common for Greek writers to omit a word, intending the omission to be filled from the preceding text. But “fruit” doesn’t quite make the best sense here.

But scholars prefer the reading that best explains all the manuscript evidence. If the original reading were “rain,” why would someone change it to “fruit”? The two words aren’t similar in the Greek. It’s hard to see where “fruit” comes from if “rain” were the original.

But if the original were blank, then it’s easy to imagine a copyist feeling compelled to give the adjectives an object, either “rain” (by reference to the Prophets) or “fruit” (from context). Hence, the scholars prefer the blank reading — even though scholars typically prefer Codex Aleph. Thus, although the Textus Receptus adds “rain,” the critical texts (texts compiled by scholars of textual criticism) omit both “rain” and “fruit.”

On the other hand, the translations uniformly add “rain,” because the translators figure this is what James meant. One might question the appropriateness of adding a word that James evidently chose not to add, but literalness sometimes has to give way to understanding. A First Century Jew would easily understand that “rain” was James’ meaning, being familiar with the Prophets, but few modern readers would.

And so it hardly matters — except it does. Here we have divergent manuscript traditions, and when we get to the end, it’s obvious what James meant and the most serious differences (between blank and “rain”) do not ultimately affect a single word of the translation. But they do illustrate the incredible amount of work and thought that goes into making these decisions, even decisions that don’t affect the translation.

Imagine how much time and effort goes into compiling the data necessary to compare texts of so many translations and texts — with the translations often being in long-dead languages. The modern translations are the result of extraordinary labors of countless scholars over the centuries — with nearly all the manuscripts having been discovered after the KJV was published.

Moreover, this passage illustrates the principle that, when we prefer the text that explains all the manuscripts we have, we usually find ourselves picking the most difficult text — because a difficult text can tempt a scribe to “fix” the text.

Let’s consider another, more significant textual variance. Here’s the KJV:

(Joh 5:4 KJV)  4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

Nearly all modern translations omit this verse, but it is included in  the New King James Version. That’s pretty much it. Why? The NET Bible translators explain —

The majority of later MSS (C³ Θ Ψ 078 ƒ^{1, 13} Û) add the following to Joh 5:3: “waiting for the moving of the water. Joh 5:4 For an angel of the Lord went down and stirred up the water at certain times. Whoever first stepped in after the stirring of the water was healed from whatever disease which he suffered.” Other MSS include only v. Joh 5:3 (A^c D 33 lat) or v. Joh 5:4 (A L it). Few textual scholars today would accept the authenticity of any portion of vv. Joh 5:3-4, for they are not found in the earliest and best witnesses (î^{66, 75} ‌א‎‏‎ B C* T pc co), they include un-Johannine vocabulary and syntax, several of the MSS that include the verses mark them as spurious (with an asterisk or obelisk), and because there is a great amount of textual diversity among the witnesses that do include the verses. The present translation follows NA²⁷ in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

There’s another reason for omitting this text, which is that it’s quite likely that the pool was part of a pagan Greek healing pool, and the point of the story to those familiar with Jerusalem is that the pagan god could not heal whereas Jesus could. (Would God really send an angel to heal only one person at a time? It just sounds pagan if you think about it.)

Ray Vander Laan offers this insight.

Asclepius was the god of healing water. John, the apostle to Asia, is the only gospel writer to include the story of the man at the pool of Bethesda (near which was a shrine to Asclepius) who was not healed with moving water but was healed by Jesus’ word (John 5:14). This certainly would have been a valuable lesson to bring to the followers of Asclepius in Pergamum and another example of the thorough preparation Jesus gave his talmidim.

The Wikipedia reaches a similar conclusion–

The biblical narrative continues by describing a Shabbat visit to the site by Jesus, during which he heals a man who has been bedridden for many years, and could not make his own way into the pool. Some scholars have suggested that the narrative is actually part of a deliberate polemic against the Asclepius cult, an antagonism possibly partly brought on by the fact that Asclepius was worshipped as Saviour (Greek: Soter), in reference to his healing attributes. The narrative uses the Greek phrase ὑγιὴς γενέσθαιhygies genesthai [John 5:6], which is not used anywhere in the Synoptic Gospels, but appears frequently in ancient testimonies to the healing powers of Asclepius; the later narrative in the Gospel of John about Jesus washing Simon Peter‘s feet at the Last Supper, similarly uses the Greek term λούειν louein [John 13:10], which is a special term for washing in an Asclepieion, rather than the Greek word used elsewhere in the Johannine text to describe washing – νίπτειν niptein.

In John for Everyone, N.T. Wright also concludes that the pool’s alleged healing power was associated with the worship of Asclepius, the Greek god of healing.

It seems likely that the story of an angel of the Lord stirring the water was added by a scribe as a marginal note — a personal commentary — based on legend or speculation. Later copies picked it up, because it explains why the lame were waiting for the “moving of the waters” — surely a natural effect that the pagan priests used to delude people into thinking their god was active at that site.

Again, we find the Textus Receptus and the Western Text to be in error. This verse appears in the KJV because of the poor manuscripts available to the translators (not to mention their lack of any archaeological knowledge to speak of). I see no reason for it to be in the NKJV other than as a marketing ploy.

Now, critical editions of the New Testament rejected this passage based on the manuscript evidence long before archaeologists discovered the pool’s pagan associations, and this helps to demonstrate that the validity of the  principles used to generate the critical text are superior to the Textus Receptus (the Greek text used by the KJV translators, being a slightly edited version of Erasmus’s text) and the Western or Majority Text.

PS — The Western or Majority Text is very similar to the  Textus Receptus, but the Textus Receptus has several differences largely due to revisions made by Erasmus.