The Date Problem and the Text
Clinton L. Branine
Professor, Heritage Baptist University
The New Version advocates attempt to use the date of
Traditional Text manuscripts as a convincing reason to support their
position.
Notice the statement by Stewart Custer, The Truth
About the King James Version Controversy: "The Alexandrian text is
older and better attested than the others." He goes on to say, "The
Byzantine text is later than the others and is a derived text." (p. 9)
He continues, "Thus the earliest evidence for the Byzantine text is the
middle of the fourth century two centuries later than the Alexandrian text."
(p. 9)
D. A. Carson agrees with Custer. "They
[scholars] argued that the Byzantine textual tradition [which
includes the TR] did not originate before the mid-fourth century, and
that it was the result of a conflation of earlier texts." (The King
James Version Debate, p.40)
Stewart Custer follows the reasoning of Westcott and
Hort. Most New Version advocates go back to Westcott and Hort for a late
date for the Traditional Text. Is this reasoning supported by fact? No!
Dr. Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New
Testament Textual Criticism, gives the following information: "These
150 readings (Byzantine) are early. They go back to the second century,
for they are supported by papyri which range from the third to the second
century in date." (p. 62) "...it is startling from the standpoint
of the WH theory to find that the so-called ‘Byzantine’ readings not only
existed early but were present in Egypt before the end of the second
century." (Sturz, p. 62)
Sturz continues, "WH, therefore, were mistaken in
regard to their insistence that all the pre-Syrian evidence for readings
was to be found in the Alexandrian, Neutral, and Western texts, i.e., that
these three text-types and their chief witnesses reserved the complete
second-century picture of the textual tradition on which the Syrian
editor(s) built." (pp. 62-63)
John Burgon surveyed the early church fathers as to the
text they used. He says:
"1. The original predominance of the Traditional
text is shown in the list given of the earliest Fathers. Their record
proves that in their writings, and so in the church generally,
corruption had made itself felt in the earliest times, but that the
pure waters generally prevailed.
2. The Tradition is also carried on through the
majority of the Fathers who succeeded them. There is no break or
interval: the witness is continuous. Again, not the slightest
confirmation is given to Dr. Hort’s notion that a revision or
recension was definitely accomplished at Antioch in the middle of the
fourth century." (The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels,
vol 1, p. 121)
Burgon says, "For the 76 Church Fathers examined,
[Fathers that died before A.D. 400] there were 2,630 references to
the Traditional Text and only 1,753 to the Neologian [Westcott-Hort
type of ] text. The Traditional Text was definitely in existence well
before 400 A.D. In other words, not only is the Traditional Text present
in these church fathers’ time, who lived and died prior to 400 A.D., the
Traditional Text predominated over the Neologian [W-H] 3 to 2."
Edward Miller (Dean Burgon’s editor) wrote, "As far
as the Fathers who died before 400 A.D. are concerned, the question may
now be put and answered. Do they witness to the Traditional Text as
existing from the first, or do they not? The results of the evidence, both
as regards the quantity and the quality of the testimony, enable us to
reply, not only that the Traditional Text was in existence, but that it
was predominant, during the period under review." (David Otis Fuller,
Which Bible, p. 116)
Westcott and Hort with their followers "...argued
that the Byzantine textual tradition (which includes the TR) did
not originate before the mid-fourth century, and that it was the result of
a conflation of earlier texts. This text was taken to Constantinople,
where it became popular spreading throughout the Byzantine Empire."
(D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, pp. 40-41)
"Westcott and Hort theorized that such a prevailing
text type could only be accounted for on the basis of its having been
ecclesiastically sanctioned, without a single shred of historical evidence
for this supposed empire-wide church council, these men simply picked out
a place, Antioch; a time, A.D. 250-350; a coordinator, Lucian; impressive
sounding, technical designation, The Lucian Recension." (William
Grady, Final Authority, p. 32 [DBS #2374])
A number of papyri (p) that date about 200 A.D., which
is 150 years before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, agree with Traditional Text
readings. Most scholars deny this but note the evidence for the
Traditional Text. After a thorough study of p 46, Gunther Zuntz states: "A
number of Byzantine readings, most of them genuine, which previously were
discarded as ‘late,’ are anticipated by p 46." (The Text of the
Epistles, p. 55) E. C. Colwell agreed with Zuntz, (What is the Best
New Testament, p. 70). These men agreed that most of the readings of p
46 were from the second century.
Floyd Jones gives the following: "Hills declared
that the Chester Beatty readings vindicate ‘distinctive Syrian readings’
twenty-six times in the gospels, eight times in the Book of Acts, and
thirty-one times in Paul’s Epistles. Hills goes on to state that Papyrus
Bodmer II (Papyri 66) confirms 13% of the so-called ‘late’ Syrian readings
(18 out of 138). To properly appreciate this one must consider the fact
that only about thirty percent of the New Testament has any papyri
support, and much of that thirty percent has only one papyrus. Thus this
is seen as a major confirmation to the antiquity of the text of the
Traditional Text in direct contradiction to the theory previously outlined
in which the Syrian readings were said by Westcott and Hort to be fourth
and fifth century. May we not reasonably project the subsequent
discoveries of papyri will give similar support to readings now only
extant in Byzantine text?" (Which Version is the Bible? p. 79)
Westcott and Hort rewrote the history of the text with
their Lucian recension. Liberals today reject for the most part the
validity of the Westcott-Hort Lucian theory. However, this is not the case
with conservative text scholars. See The Bible Version Debate
published by Central Baptist Seminary, Minneapolis, MN. This school also
produced the One Bible Only?
Stewart Custer and the Bob Jones scholars also continue
with the Westcott-Hort view.
The Dallas Seminary Scholars and most of the
Fundamental Seminaries agree with Westcott and Hort. This is indeed odd
when liberal scholars agree there is no history to back the Westcott-Hort
view.
The facts evidence an early existence of the
Traditional Text. We believe the Traditional Text is a preservation of the
original text.
|
