Content deleted Content added
new key for Category:Textual criticism: "*" using HotCat |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 18:
! width="20%"|Text-type !! width=" 10%" |Date!!Characteristics!! Bible version
|-
| The [[Alexandrian text-type]]<br />(also called the "Neutral Text" tradition; less frequently, the "Minority Text")||2nd–4th centuries CE||
|-
|The [[Western text-type]]||3rd–9th centuries CE ||The main characteristic of the Western text is a love of paraphrase: "Words and even clauses are changed, omitted, and inserted with surprising freedom, wherever it seemed that the meaning could be brought out with greater force and definiteness."<ref name="Hort">[[Brooke Foss Westcott]], [[Fenton John Anthony Hort]]. ''The New Testament In The Original Greek'', 1925. p. 550</ref> One possible source of glossing is the desire to harmonise and to complete: "More peculiar to the Western text is the readiness to adopt alterations or additions from sources extraneous to the books which ultimately became canonical."<ref name="Hort" />
Some modern textual critics doubt the existence of a singular Western text-type, instead viewing it as a group of text-types.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Ehrman |first1=Bart D. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=guYq9rohFQ8C |title=The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Second Edition |last2=Holmes |first2=Michael W. |date=2012-11-09 |publisher=BRILL |isbn=978-90-04-23604-2 |pages=190–191 |language=en}}</ref>
|[[Vetus Latina]], [[Syriac versions of the Bible#Old Syriac version|Old Syriac]]
|-
| The [[Byzantine text-type]]; also, [[Koine Greek|Koinē]] text-type <br />(also called "Majority Text")||4th–16th centuries CE||Compared to [[Alexandrian text-type]] manuscripts, the distinct Byzantine readings tend to show a greater tendency toward smooth and well-formed Greek, they display fewer instances of textual variation between parallel [[Synoptic Gospel]] passages, and they are less likely to present contradictory or "[[Lectio difficilior potior|difficult]]" issues of [[exegesis]].<ref>"The Syrian text has all the appearance of being a careful attempt to supersede the chaos of rival texts by a judicious selection from them all." [[Brooke Foss Westcott]], [[Fenton John Anthony Hort]]. ''The New Testament In The Original Greek'', 1925. p. 551</ref>|| The [[List of English Bible translations|Aramaic Peshitta]],<ref name="ident-nt">{{Cite book |last=Pickering |first=Wilbur N. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Ii5bzgEACAAJ |title=Identity of the New Testament Text III |publisher=Wipf & Stock Publishers |year=2012 |isbn=978-1-4982-6349-8}}</ref> [[Ulfilas|Wulfila's Gothic translation]],<ref>Bennett, William, 1980, ''An Introduction to the Gothic Language'', pp. 24-25.</ref> the [[World English Bible|WEB]],<ref>{{Cite web |title=World English Bible (WEB) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com |url=https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/World-English-Bible-WEB/ |access-date=2023-12-24 |website=www.biblegateway.com}}</ref>
Bible translations relying on the ''[[Textus Receptus]]'' which is close to the Byzantine text: [[King James Version|KJV]], [[New King James Version|NKJV]], [[Tyndale Bible|Tyndale]], [[Coverdale Bible|Coverdale]], [[Geneva Bible|Geneva]], [[Bishops' Bible]], [[Orthodox Study Bible|OSB]]
|}
Line 67 ⟶ 70:
A minority position represented by ''The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text'' edition by [[Zane C. Hodges]] and Arthur L. Farstad argues that the Byzantine text-type represents an earlier text-type than the surviving Alexandrian texts. This position is also held by [[Maurice A. Robinson]] and William G. Pierpont in their ''The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform'', and the [[King James Only Movement]]. The argument states that the far greater number of surviving late Byzantine manuscripts implies an equivalent preponderance of Byzantine texts amongst lost earlier manuscripts. Hence, a critical reconstruction of the predominant text of the Byzantine tradition would have a superior claim to being closest to the autographs.{{citation needed|date=September 2021}}
Another position is that of the Neo-Byzantine School. The Neo-Byzantines (or new Byzantines) of the 16th and 17th centuries first formally compiled the New Testament Received Text under such textual analysts as [[Erasmus]], [[Robert Estienne|Stephanus (Robert Estienne)]], [[Beza]], and Elzevir. The early 21st century saw the rise of the first textual analyst of this school in over three centuries with Gavin McGrath (b. 1960). A religiously conservative Protestant from Australia, his Neo-Byzantine School principles maintain that the representative or majority Byzantine text, such as compiled by Hodges & Farstad (1985) or [[Maurice A. Robinson|Robinson]] & Pierpont (2005), is to be upheld unless there is a "clear and obvious" textual problem with it. When this occurs, he adopts either a minority Byzantine reading, a reading from the ancient [[Vulgate]], or a reading attested to in the writings of an ancient [[Church Father]] (in either Greek or Latin) by way of quotation. The Neo-Byzantine School considers that the doctrine of the Divine Preservation of Scripture means that God preserved the Byzantine Greek manuscripts, Latin manuscripts, and Greek and Latin church writers' citations of Scripture over time and through time. These are regarded as "a closed class of sources" i.e., non-Byzantine Greek manuscripts such as the Alexandrian texts, or manuscripts in other languages such as Armenian, Syriac, or Ethiopian, are regarded as "outside the closed class of sources" providentially protected over time, and so not used to compose the New Testament text.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.easy.com.au/~gmbooks/ |title=Gavin McGrath Books |website=www.easy.com.au |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100410190056/http://www.easy.com.au/~gmbooks |archive-date=2010-04-10}}
Other scholars have criticized the current categorization of manuscripts into text-types and prefer either to subdivide the manuscripts in other ways or to discard the text-type taxonomy.{{citation needed|date=September 2021}}
== Interpolations ==
In attempting to determine the original text of the New Testament books, some modern textual critics{{who|date=March 2022}} have identified sections as [[Interpolation (manuscripts)|interpolations]]. In modern translations of the Bible such as the [[New International Version]], the results of textual criticism have led to certain verses, words and phrases being left out or marked as not original. Previously, translations of the New Testament such as the [[King James Version]] had mostly been based on [[Erasmus]]'s redaction of the New Testament in Greek, the ''[[Textus Receptus]]'' from the 16th century based on later manuscripts.<ref>{{cite web |last=Hills |first=Edward |date=1 July 1998 |title=A HISTORY OF MY DEFENCE OF THE KING JAMES VERSION |url=https://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP12.htm
According to [[Bart D. Ehrman]], "These scribal additions are often found in late medieval manuscripts of the New Testament, but not in the manuscripts of the earlier centuries," he adds. And because the King James Bible is based on later manuscripts, such verses "became part of the Bible tradition in English-speaking lands."<ref name=autogenerated1>[[Bart D. Ehrman|Ehrman, Bart D.]] ''[[Misquoting Jesus]]: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why''. HarperCollins, 2005, p. 265. {{ISBN|978-0-06-073817-4}}</ref>
Line 89 ⟶ 92:
Opinions are divided on whether Jesus is referred to as "unique [or only-begotten: Gk. ''monogenes''] Son" or "unique [''monogenes''] God", in {{bibleverse||John|1:18}}<ref name="Metzger1994" />
{{
Various groups of highly conservative Christians believe that when Ps.12:6–7 speaks of the preservation of the words of God, that this nullifies the need for textual criticism, lower, and higher. Such people include [[Gail Riplinger]], [[Peter Ruckman]], and others. Many theological organisations, societies, newsletters, and churches also hold to this belief, including "AV Publications", ''Sword of The LORD Newsletter'', The Antioch Bible Society<ref>[http://antiochbiblesociety.org/ Antioch Bible Society]</ref> and others. On the other hand, [[Reformation]] biblical scholars such as [[Martin Luther]] saw the academic analysis of biblical texts and their provenance as entirely in line with orthodox Christian faith.<ref name="Kramm 2009 p. 110">{{cite book | last=Kramm | first=H.H. | title=The Theology of Martin Luther | publisher=Wipf & Stock Publishers | year=2009 | isbn=978-1-60608-765-7 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FzBMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA110 | accessdate=14 May 2017 | page=110}}</ref><ref name="Hendrix 2015 p. 39">{{cite book | last=Hendrix | first=S.H. | title=Martin Luther: Visionary Reformer | publisher=Yale University Press | year=2015 | isbn=978-0-300-16669-9 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NHKhCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA39 | accessdate=14 May 2017 | page=39}}</ref><ref>Note, however, that Luther did not exclusively advocate for disinterested historical reconstruction of the original text. See {{cite book | last=Evans | first=C.A. | title=The World of Jesus and the Early Church: Identity and Interpretation in Early Communities of Faith | publisher=Hendrickson Publishers | year=2011 | isbn=978-1-59856-825-7 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6sTLA0LRx_cC&pg=PA171 | accessdate=14 May 2017 | page=171}}</ref>
| |||