Those Pesky Little Footnotes
Those pesky footnotes -- if you are reading a modern Bible today (NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, NKJV, etc.) then you have most likely seen a footnote like this: 'these verses are not found in the oldest, best, most reliable Greek manuscripts.' One noteworthy example is Mark 16:9-20.
For ease of reference please find here the entire chapter of Mark 16:
Mar 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. Mar 16:2 And very early in the morning the first [day] of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. Mar 16:3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? Mar 16:4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. Mar 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. Mar 16:6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. Mar 16:7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. Mar 16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any [man]; for they were afraid. Mar 16:9 Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first [day] of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. Mar 16:10 [And] she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. Mar 16:11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. Mar 16:12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. Mar 16:13 And they went and told [it] unto the residue: neither believed they them. Mar 16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. Mar 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. Mar 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with [them], and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
Here are the facts surrounding Mark 16:9-20. You can find this out for yourself with a little bit of effort but I will save you the time for now, but as always the burden is upon you to dig it out for yourself.
'As previously stated most modern versions have a footnote to the effect that 'these verses are not in the oldest, best, most reliable Greek manuscripts.' In laymen's terms this means that Mark 16:9-20 are not in the two 4th century Greek manuscripts, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph which were derived from Origen's (185-254) edited New Testament (a 12th century miniscule also omits the verses).
Of the apporximately 3,119 Greek manuscripts of the N.T. extant today, none is complete. The segment of text bearing Mark 16 has been lost from many, but over 1,800 contain the section and verses 9-20 are present in all by the 3 cited above. The footnote is thus unveiled and laid bare as dishonest and deliberately misleading in intimating that these verses are not the Word of God.
The external evidence is massive. Not only is the Greek manuscript attestation ratio over 600 to 1 in support of the verses (99.9%) -- around 8,000 Latin mss, about 1,000 Syriac versions as well as all of the over 2,000 known Greek Lectionaires contain the verses. They were cited by Church 'Fathers' who lived 150 years of more before B or Aleph were written. These 'Fathers' included: Papias (c. 100), Justin Martyr (c. 150), Iranaeus (c. 180), Tertullian (c. 195), and Hippolytus (c. 200). Further, the Vatican MSS has a blank space exactly the size required to include the 12 verses at the end of the 16th chapter. The scribe who prepared B obviously knew of the existence of the verses and their precise content. Tischendorf observed, Sianaiticus exhibits a different handwriting and ink on this page, and there is a change in spacing and size of the individual letters in an attempt to fill up the void left by the removal of the verses. These circumstances testify that the sheet is a forgery.'
Quoted from Dr. Floyd Jones book entitled "Which Version is The Bible?"
Now, go back and read Mark 16 again. Stop when you get to verse 8 and see what you think. Does that sound like a Holy Spirit inspired text? Hopefully a resounding NO is uttered!! It actually sounds like a text the Devil would love to see in my humble opinion! I entreat you dear reader to wrestle with this and seek God on this. You can be assured that God would never give us Scripture and then allow it to be lost. Nor would He allow additional text to be included in His Holy Writ if they are not part of the inspired text. This really is a matter of faith. If you believe God for your eternal salvation, do you also believe He has the power to 'preserve' His Word? Next time you see a footnote, realize it is not there to help build your faith, rather it actually undermines the very authority of God's Word by making one question if they really have the Word of God in their hands.
In Him,
Eye
7 Comments:
Isnt it the careful textural critisisms which have led to the said footnots which allows us to have trust in the modern translations?
Otherwise what is stopping som unlettered Joe Bloe from slapping a book together and stamping BIBLE in the front cover?
Yes the Bible is the inspired Word of God.
Yes God has the power and motive to preserve His Word.
Yes God graciously has preserved His word for Christians to treasure even 2000+ years after they were first written. This in itself is amazing!
I still do not believe the modern translations to be inspired, if they were then would they not be all identical?
Since they are not all the same, is there one modern translation which is inspired at the expence of all the others?
Interested in your thoughts.
MDM
By Modern Day Magi, at June 22, 2006 2:15 AM
MDM,
Thanks for stopping by and you ask a very good question -- "I still do not believe the modern translations to be inspired, if they were then would they not be all identical?"
Eye's thoughts on your question are:
1. The OT was around in Jesus' day and it was called the Hebrew Massoretic Text. It was accepted as being complete, inspired and preserved and we know this from what Jesus had to say about it and by what He didn't say about it.
2. The NT was not around during Jesus' earthly ministry. We know it was written between 50 - 100 AD. Trying to understand the history and efforts of the early believers to unite what we know today to be the NT with the OT is a fascinating study of God's soverign and providential use of man in canonizing the Bible in what we today know to be the 66 books that make up the Scripture. The Apocrypha was not included, OT works as well as NT works.
3. I've said this before and I will state it again for I feel this is most important. I know most professing Christians have not studied this issue and what little they have is biased to their denominational influences, etc. The Bible clearly states that it is 'inspired' and 'preserved' by God. Jesus affirmed the OT in His day for we know He never stated anything was missing nor did He state anything should be added to it. I submit we can rest in the fact the Hebrew Massoretic Text is the Word of God. Now then, the KJBible uses the Hebrew Massoretic Text as its base for its OT. The KJB also uses the Textus Receptus Greek text for its base of the New Testament Greek translated into English. Every other modern Bible uses a different Greek Text -- primarily the text used by Westcott and Hort and it is commonly called the 'Critical Text'. It is called the Critical Text because it is edited according to specific principles of textual criticism which depends heavily upon the Alexandrian type text (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). The Critical Text and the Textus Receptus (Recieved Text) read dramatically different in many places. Much study has been done over the years that highlights the differences in the two texts. The Critical Text omits a number of words that are equivalent to 1st and 2nd Peter. Most of these omissions have to do with Jesus claims of deity, His atoning work, the blood, Hell, and other essential doctrines.
To me, the easy answer to your good question is -- modern versions of the Bible read differently from each other and the KJV based on the variant underlying Greek texts used to produce the various modern Bibles. To me, you can simply compare a verse in the KJB with one in the NIV, NASB, etc and you decide which one is authored by the Holy Spirit.
Just check out one simple verse (Luke 2:33) in the KJB and look it up in every modern Bible you can find. Tell me, which Bible promotes the doctrine of the Virgin birth? Even the NKJB shows its true colors by using one of those 'PESKY' faith - crunching footnotes regarding this verse...
This is one example; there are countless others that show the same thing regarding Hell, the blood, Jesus divinity, etc.
Hope this helps.
In Him,
Eye
By Eye, at June 25, 2006 8:02 PM
Dear Eye,
You said, "1. The OT was around in Jesus' day and it was called the Hebrew Massoretic Text."
You mis-spoke. While it was true that Jesus had the Hebrew Bible (HB), the Masoretic Text (MT) was not created until the seventh through tenth centuries AD. Jesus also had the Septuagint (LXX), and He quoted from it. If Jesus quoted from both the HB and the LXX, does that mean that translations are also preserved by the power of God? Or does it mean that the truth of God can be found even in a manuscript or translation that is not perfect?
Dr Davy
By Anonymous, at July 20, 2006 2:34 PM
Modern scholarship holds that the LXX was translated and composed over the course of the 3rd through 1st centuries BC, beginning with the Torah.
The oldest manuscripts of the LXX include 2nd century BC fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BC fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943). Relatively complete manuscripts of the LXX include the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus of the 4th century and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century. These are indeed the oldest surviving nearly-complete manuscripts of the Old Testament in any language; the oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date over 700 years later, from around 1000.
The sources of the many differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text have long been discussed by scholars. The most widely accepted view today is that the Septuagint provides a reasonably accurate record of an early Semitic textual variant, now lost, that differs from ancestors of the Masoretic text. The view favored in early Christian circles was that the differences are primarily due to intentional or accidental corruption of Masoretic text in Medieval times. Following the Renaissance, a common opinion among some humansists was that Septuagint translators bungled the translation from the Hebrew and that their text became corrupt. The discovery of many fragments in the Dead Sea scrolls that agree with the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic proved that many of the variants in Greek were also present in early Semitic editions.
Jewish revisions and recensions in both Greek and Semitic dialects is well attested, the most famous of which include those by Aquila (128), Symmachus and Theodotion. Origen (235), and other early Church fathers discussed the differences and attempted to preserve the original reading of the Greek. A Christian scholast in Alexandria, he completed a comprehensive synopsis of each ancient version side-by-side, but his work is now almost completely lost.
These issues notwithstanding, the text of the LXX is in general close to that of the Masoretic. For example, Genesis 4:1-6 is identical in both the LXX and Masoretic texts. Likewise, Genesis 4:8 to the end of the chapter is the same.
The Masoretic Text (MT) is the Hebrew text of the Tanakh approved for general use in Judaism. It is also widely used in translations of the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. It was primarily compiled, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the seventh and tenth centuries CE, though the consonants differ little from the text generally accepted in the early second century. It has numerous differences when compared to earlier sources such as the Septuagint, of both little and great significance.
The Hebrew word mesorah (מסורה) refers to the transmission of a tradition. In fact, in a very broad sense it can refer to the entire chain of Jewish tradition (see Oral law). But in terms of the masoretic text the word mesorah has a very specific meaning: it refers to concise marginal notes in manuscripts (and later printings) of the Hebrew Bible which note textual details, usually about the precise spelling of words.
The oldest manuscripts containing substantial parts of the Masoretic Text known to still exist date from approximately the ninth century, and the Aleppo Codex (possibly the first ever complete copy of the Masoretic Text in one manuscript - see the Aleppo Codex article) dates from the tenth century.
The above is from Wikipedia...
Dr. Davy,
Your comment is precise and I agree with you mine is not. Please allow me to clarify. I believe the 'copies' Jesus read and quoted were copied an preserved to allow what we have today, commonly called the MT. I do not believe Jesus read or studied the Septuagint, although I'm not dogmatic about that. I would be interested in understanding the documentation surrounding your point that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint.
Good to hear from you!
In Him,
Eye
By Eye, at July 20, 2006 3:00 PM
Eye,
There are many cases where the LXX is quoted in the NT. I googled "Jesus quote septuagint" and found several. You have to pick and choose among what is claimed in some of those websites--there's a lot of bad theology and bad exegesis out there--but some examples are correct.
For example, in Luke 4:18-19 Jesus quotes Isa. 61:1-2. Most of His Greek words are identical to the LXX. In particular, the phrase "recovering of sight to the blind" is in the LXX and not in the MT.
Also, in Mt 4:4 when Jesus quotes Deut 8:3 against Satan, He quotes from the LXX. MT reads "the Lord" while LXX reads "God." Also, except for leaving out one definite article, Jesus' quote is verbatim from the LXX.
There are many other quotes in Acts and the letters of Paul that come from the LXX. Therefore, the Holy Spirit inspired the NT writers to quote the LXX.
We know that the LXX is often a bad translation, especially in Daniel and Esther. But apparently the truth of God can be preserved even in a bad translation. Or what? What am I missing?
One interesting note. The LXX has a lot of additions, especially in Daniel. The LXX also contains the Apocrypha. While Jesus and the NT writers quoted the LXX, they never quoted the additions or the Apocrypha. Hmm.
Dr Davy
By Anonymous, at July 28, 2006 8:59 AM
Dr Davy,
I'm preparing a response to your questions -- it will perhaps deserve a separate post -- lots there. Be patient with me.
In Him,
Eye
By Eye, at August 02, 2006 2:43 PM
Wonderful and informative web site. I used information from that site its great. » »
By Anonymous, at March 02, 2007 9:51 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home